Comment

My first statement was sarcasm. If you learned to write in university you would learn to write in an academic style. Since most people write more in university than the rest of their career there’s simply more writing with that style available. Since that’s all available through journals or more insidious sources it’s likely training fodder for AIs. Therefore someone’s writing being misinterpreted for AI likely just means they’ve used some academic style. I only commented on it because you brought it up in your first comment. I believe I’m in agreement with your original sentiment that it’s a silly notion(?)

The “E:” means “edit” since I edited my post to change the wording from worse language to something i felt was more appropriate.

The “needs more Queen” refers how OP uses the members of the band as examples to make their point. I’m intending to contrast that with your write-up which does not share a similar pop-culture example approach but hinges instead on your personal experience. You said your comment could be a good start to the series requested in the replies in the image. That is what i was meaning to respond to with this critique. I believe the replies in the image wanted more pop-culture based references.

None of it’s a purity test and the last part is just my opinion.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Shocking that someone with a major that requires lots of writing would have similarities with model that simply copies the writing style with the largest sample size.

My first statement was sarcasm.

Who is the subject you are referring to?

I… am assuming it is me, because you replied to my comment.

If you were not referring to me… why did you reply to this comment of mine?

Did you mean to reply to a different comment I made, where I went into more detail about writing structures and LLM output?

But also, I am the only person that’s explicitly mentioned my own major… in this entire thread.

???

…

Since most people write more in university than the rest of their career there’s simply more writing with that style available. Since that’s all available through journals or more insidious sources it’s likely training fodder for AIs. Therefore someone’s writing being misinterpreted for AI likely just means they’ve used some academic style.

Oh, ok, you are misinformed.

No, no, LLMs are fed 99.9% of training data from all kinds of random internet comments from the entire internet, reddit, intstagram, facebook, tiktok, everyone’s blog they forgot they even had 6 years ago, stackoverflow, truth social, twitter, youtube comments, wikipedia, etc etc.

They thus learn to emulate the average writing style of the average internet user, by default, albeit with some safety rails put on them manually.

They absolutely do not write in the style of academic journals, unless you specifically prompt them to write in such a manner, or ask them for precise details about data (or use terms and phrases) that essentialy only exists in academic journals.

…

So… yeah, that’s why I assumed you were referencing me… because your sarcastic comment doesn’t make any sense as a sarcastic comment, because the thing its being sarcastic about is built on a false premise.

Also, because you specifically mentioned a writing style of a particular kind of major the OP doesn’t mention this concept, and as best I can tell, neither does anyone else in this whole thread.

…

Also also… even if your idea that LLMs write in the style of academic writings… the only actual LLM generated text in this whole thread… reads like a high school assignment essay… it doesn’t at all read like something that would be published in an academic, peer reviewed journal, nor even really like much writing that would get better than a 2.5ish out of 4.0 as assignments in a Uni… it reads like middle to high schooler writing.

So your ‘sarcasm’ also doesn’t make any sense in that way either, because that is another, seperate but also present false premise that the sarcasm would have to derive from to… make sense…

Unless you are referring to me, and what I just wrote, in the comment you replied to.

…

Well, I apologize for going off on you when you didn’t mean to insult me, but hopefully you can at least understand why I interpreted what you said as a personal attack.

Yeah, I missed the Queen reference being more directly related to the actual OP, I am at this point more used to celebrities and Zoomers using Queen as basically to mean a person who thinks very, very highly of themselves, has a considerable sense of entitlement and is feminine presenting.

And I was so worked up at this point I interpreted everything else as an attack.

(Ahem. Yep. Autism confirmed lol.)

So, yeah, I appreciate the explanation, I again apologize for blowing up on you.I can see now that you absolutely did not mean anything as a criticism of memor my own writing.

Your initial statement was, and still is quite confusing to me, but I appreciate that you took the time to explain what you were trying to say, and hopefully you now understand a bit of my thought process as you kindly explained your own to me.

Somewhat ironically, my intial confused interpretation of what you said you did manage to evoke a more catty, venomous and snarky response out of me, so perhaps that’s me being a bit of the Queen I wrongfully thought you wanted me to be, lol.

source