This is strictly true but not correct. LLMs were trained on human-written text, but they were post-trained to generate text in a particular style. And that style does have some common patterns.
Examples of LLM-style text: short & punchy sentences, negative parallelism ("not just X, it's Y"), bullet points especially with emojis and bolded text. Overuse of em-dash.
It's one thing to observe "LLM-generated writing all looks the same". Whether the LLMs were all post-trained the same way is a different question.
I don't agree "everyone says everything is AI". Do you have examples where a consensus of people are accusing something of being AI generated, where it lacks those indicators?
I consistently get accused of AI writing, but I’m not really sure why. I use spellcheck, that’s about it. Although I am a fan of an appropriately used em-dash, I don’t really follow the other patterns. I also find that people say that as a form of character assassination though, literally denying your humanity lol.
Just reading through posts on here about various blogs/posts/opinion pieces there always seems to be a handful of people that jumps to "this is AI". And maybe it is! But the driving force behind this seems not to be to identify that something is AI, but because they spite it so (AI writing), to quickly rule out caring about the material if identified as AI slop.
The problem I see this leading to is plenty of legitimate written things getting thrown away because somebodys online exposure bubbles don't end up including a lot of Medium or Tumblr or a certain Discord or whatever bubble where _huge_ groups of people actually are writing in whatever $STYLE is being identified by the reader and commenter as AI. Which then, because of their post, also gets other people to not even look.
> But the driving force behind this seems not to be to identify that something is AI, but because they spite it so (AI writing), to quickly rule out caring about the material.
Your expressed concern is "people don't like AI; this dislike motivates people to dismiss the material".
I think it's misguided to assume motivation.
For myself, I dislike the writing style because it's insincere and inauthentic. If the author isn't motivated enough to write out something in their own words, what's there to motivate a reader?
> The problem I see this leading to is plenty of legitimate written things getting thrown away because somebodys online exposure bubbles don't end up
Do you have any actual examples where legitimate writing was dismissed as written by AI? If not, I'd suggest your concern is hypothetical.
if the people who develop and release these models were all optimizing for the same goals, they could converge on strategies or behaviors, without coordinating.
I'm one of the unlucky ones who has coincidentally trained myself over the past fifteen years to write in the style that is now largely recognized to be the ChatGPT style— bolded lists, clear section breakdowns with intro and concluding sentences, correct and liberal use of semicolons and em-dashes. The only parts of it I don't do are litter my text with random emojis or directly address the reader with simpering praise.
I mean, that has always been my intention with it— particularly in the context of something like a ticket or design doc where it's critical that other busy people be able to quickly get a high level overview and then scan for the bits that are most relevant or of interest to themselves.
It's just ironic that I've now been asked if I was using AI to write (or punch up) content that I've produced in this style when I most certainly was not.
