I didn't make heavy use of it, but I did sometimes use "It's not X, it's Y" or some closely related variant. I've had to strike that from my writing, because whether or not it makes anyone else cringe, it's making me cringe now. My usage doesn't even match the ones the LLMs favor, my X & Y were typically full clauses with many words rather than the LLM's use of short, punchy X & Ys... but still. Close enough. Can't write it anymore.

I'm still using bullet lists sometimes, as they have their place, and I'm hoping LLMs don't totally nuke them.

Exactly and this is hell for programming.

You don't know whose style the LLM would pick for that particular prompt and project. You might end up with Carmack or maybe that buggy, test-failing piece of junk project on Github.

Isn't the alternative far more likely? These tools were trained on the way people write in certain settings, which includes a lot of curated technical articles like this one, and we're seeing that echoed in their output.

There's no "LLM style". There's "human style mimicked by LLMs". If they default to a specific style, then that's on the human user who chooses to go with it, or, likely, doesn't care. They could just as well make it output text in the style of Shakespeare or a pirate, eschew emojis and bulleted lists, etc.

If you're finding yourself influenced by LLMs—don't be. Here's why:

• It doesn't matter.

• Keep whatever style you had before LLMs.

:tada:

Out of the mountains of content, one single symbol would provoke the ire of non-ascii reactionaries.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44072922

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45766969

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45073287

I suddenly have the urge to reply to this with a bulleted list where the bullets are emoji.

AI visual output mimicks art sufficiently that it is now more difficult to identify authenticity and humanity, which are important for the human connection audiences want from art.

AI outputs mimicking art rob audiences of the ability to appreciate art on its own in the wild without further markers of authenticity, which steals joy from a whole generation of digital artists that have grown up sharing their creativity with each other

If you lack the empathy to understand why AI art-like outputs are abhorrent, I hope someone wastes a significant portion of your near future with generated meaningless material presented to you as something that is valuable and was time consuming to make, and you gain nothing from it, so that you can understand the problem for yourself first hand.

This ultimately will only ever harm human artists accused of it. AI artists can just say “yeah, I did, so what” defusing the criticism.

If there wasn't global-scale theft of art and content or if LLMs could produce something better than an inferior facsimile, I bet there would be less backlash.

But instead we had a 'non-profit' called 'Open'AI that irresponsibly unleashed this technology on the world and lied about its capabilities with no care of how it would affect the average person.

You're on a forum full of people trying to profit from this tech. In that context the pushback is obvious.

I mean, I guess I just don't care as much, as long as the author proof read it and it says what they want it to say. Just like I don't care if an AI submits a vulnerability report that is actually real.

AI text often sounds like Corporate/PR nonsense to me. I was already convinced that people speaking like that were robots 30 years ago.