I mean this is the thing that really comes off hard.
If you want precision and clarity of your writing, then you need to hand write it. Just like when you are optimising, its common to drop to a lower level language because the compiler doesn't express what you want. Sure its hard, but you know, thats kinda the point.
Even if you don't want that, the LLM is an average of the style it was trained to give out. Which is a homogenisation of the language to create a vague padding medium between a few generalised facts. (because a. it makes it less jarring when stuff is wrong, because its smeared over a higher amount of text and b. it looks more 'professional' because American business English is all guff and no meat)
Also yes, two isolated phrases may have subtly different meaning, frankly, the nuance is missed on most people. If you look at the interactions on here, at least 25% of the arguments are caused by people angrily reacting to the things _they_ thought the other person was saying, rather than what the actual person was saying.
So no its not a perversion, the LLM is, if you're gonna be picky about things.
The bigger problem is its effect on the way we use language. The amount of LLM generated or edited media is going to keep increasing and the media that people consume affects their own word choice.
I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it. Neither can I recall there has ever been a moveable type press, laser printer, or inkjet which bastardised the words of authors.
These were mediums _through_ which communication happened. Language models, large or small, are not any such medium.
> Neither can I recall there has ever been a moveable type press,
Ah my friend, you are about to fall down a rabbit hole into standardisation of spelling, and the sometimes deadly debates about how to translate latin into the vernacular.
English, as she is written, is a great example.
for the spoken word, BBC/received pronunciation is another. I speak the way I do _because_ of BBC radio. The reason I have the accent I do is because I changed it to fit what the BBC put out, rather than what my local (impenetrable) dialect was.
You have to remember that your language is shaped by those around you when you are young. So if you are in an insular community, it will be reflected in your language. If I was a journalist, or hell, just me, I wouldn't be letting an LLM speak for me. So the bastardisation of my voice is down to me, not the machine.
but again, your argument is against LLMs and globalisation of culture, not finger printing.
This is very poignant. The entities that controlled the content broadcast over radio and TV or what was published in books and newspapers had an enormous impact on both culture and language. Radio and print didn’t just transmit the voice of a single person, the message was shaped by whole teams of editors, bureaucrats, politicians, censors and the necessities and constraints of the technology. Any message that a person tried to transmit through these channels was transformed more than it would be if you ran it through an LLM or more likely not transmitted at all.
There are two different things being talked about here, one of which is "what effect does widespread LLM use have on a culture", and one of which is "what is the effect on a specific text of running it through an LLM".
[1] > A radio device at BBC did all this and not humans?
Technology mediates (human) agency.
[2] > My argument is that radio is a medium through which humans communicate. An LLM is not.
KaiserPro's argument is that radio (a one-way medium) mediates how humans communicate (phonetically), thus influencing how people speak.
Now that does not explain how the printing press and radio have influenced word choice (both of which I would like to see examples of!)
[3] > I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it.
Now media themselves did not really have something that looked like the kind of pseudo-agency that LLMs seemingly have. There may be some kind of qualitative leap.
I mean I get your point, but sadly LLMs are a tool by which humans communicate.
In the same way that handwriting conveys more information about the writer than type, typing ones own thoughts conveys more information about the writer than prompting an LLM.
The analogy here is hiring a speech writer to do your speeches, or dictating to a skilled typist.
If you want precision and clarity of your writing, then you need to hand write it. Just like when you are optimising, its common to drop to a lower level language because the compiler doesn't express what you want. Sure its hard, but you know, thats kinda the point.
Even if you don't want that, the LLM is an average of the style it was trained to give out. Which is a homogenisation of the language to create a vague padding medium between a few generalised facts. (because a. it makes it less jarring when stuff is wrong, because its smeared over a higher amount of text and b. it looks more 'professional' because American business English is all guff and no meat)
Also yes, two isolated phrases may have subtly different meaning, frankly, the nuance is missed on most people. If you look at the interactions on here, at least 25% of the arguments are caused by people angrily reacting to the things _they_ thought the other person was saying, rather than what the actual person was saying.
So no its not a perversion, the LLM is, if you're gonna be picky about things.