People are adding typos, aggressively casual language and references to ‘The Office’ to stay ahead of armchair detectors; ‘It’s like the new McCarthyism.’
On one hand I understand the need to feel seen as authentic, but on the other, I think there is a danger in giving into the hysteria surrounding slop by twisting one’s work into knots. If it’s good, it’s good. As Martin Scorsese said: “The most personal is the most creative.”
I know that I’ve never personally never seen any LLM generated content that was interesting beyond it’s novelty. Adam Savage also said (paraphrasing bc I can’t find it) “Sharing your point of view is what makes something interesting and I have yet to see AI-generated content that has a point of view”.
“Sharing your point of view is what makes something interesting and I have yet to see AI-generated content that has a point of view”.
The problem is that readers and writers necessarily are playing an adversarial game. If you’re reading, you want to determine whether what you are reading is a waste of your time as quickly as possible. If you’re writing, you want to signal to the reader that it is worth it to keep reading. Even if what you have to say is really deep and genuine and true and someone reading the whole thing would be able to tell, a reader could see an em dash and bail in the first two seconds, and that doesn’t mean they are shallow or not worth writing for, it’s just basic self defense.
Like it or not if you are writing something you want people to read it’s not optional to consider how to get past their filters, they aren’t going to give you a second look if you fail one. IMO that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, honestly a lot of formal writing style was already just signaling of a different type; that you are educated and likely know what you are talking about, but a lot of that was always bullshit and unrelated to whether you have something worthwhile to say. At least now that AI has dragged old styles of writing through the mud, there is less incentive to waste time prettying up your words to match a standard.
If you’re reading, you want to determine whether what you are reading is a waste of your time as quickly as possible.
I have honestly not heard of this behavior, and I myself certainly don’t do this. I wouldn’t determine “what’s worth reading” in the middle of reading, but well before I start. For example, if a piece is published somewhere I trust, or a friend recommended it, or say, it was posted in a Lemmy community known to have good moderation.
Like I said I understand why an artist would have a desire to present as authentic, but that is an unwinnable game because:
The AI is also “trying to present as authentic” (any automated filtering system is beatable)
Adjusting one’s behavior so as to appear a particular way is definitionally inauthentic.
On one hand I understand the need to feel seen as authentic, but on the other, I think there is a danger in giving into the hysteria surrounding slop by twisting one’s work into knots. If it’s good, it’s good. As Martin Scorsese said: “The most personal is the most creative.”
I know that I’ve never personally never seen any LLM generated content that was interesting beyond it’s novelty. Adam Savage also said (paraphrasing bc I can’t find it) “Sharing your point of view is what makes something interesting and I have yet to see AI-generated content that has a point of view”.
The problem is that readers and writers necessarily are playing an adversarial game. If you’re reading, you want to determine whether what you are reading is a waste of your time as quickly as possible. If you’re writing, you want to signal to the reader that it is worth it to keep reading. Even if what you have to say is really deep and genuine and true and someone reading the whole thing would be able to tell, a reader could see an em dash and bail in the first two seconds, and that doesn’t mean they are shallow or not worth writing for, it’s just basic self defense.
Like it or not if you are writing something you want people to read it’s not optional to consider how to get past their filters, they aren’t going to give you a second look if you fail one. IMO that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, honestly a lot of formal writing style was already just signaling of a different type; that you are educated and likely know what you are talking about, but a lot of that was always bullshit and unrelated to whether you have something worthwhile to say. At least now that AI has dragged old styles of writing through the mud, there is less incentive to waste time prettying up your words to match a standard.
I have honestly not heard of this behavior, and I myself certainly don’t do this. I wouldn’t determine “what’s worth reading” in the middle of reading, but well before I start. For example, if a piece is published somewhere I trust, or a friend recommended it, or say, it was posted in a Lemmy community known to have good moderation.
Like I said I understand why an artist would have a desire to present as authentic, but that is an unwinnable game because: