It's just good writing structure. I get the feeling many people hadn't been exposed to good structure before LLMs.

LLMs can definitely have a tone, but it is pretty annoying that every time someone cares to write well, they are getting accused of sounding like an LLM instead of the other way around. LLMs were trained to write well, on human writing, it's not surprising there is crossover.

▲

leoedin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's really not "good" for many people. It's the sort of high-persuasion marketing speak that used to be limited to the blogs of glossy but shallow startups. Now it's been sucked up by LLMs and it's everywhere.

If you want good writing, go and read a New Yorker.

▲

ukuina 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not so sure about that. There are many distinct LLM "smells" in that comment, like "A is true, but it hides something: unrelated to A" and "It's not (just) C, it's hyperbole D".

▲

9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Kiro 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I personally love that phrasing even if it's a clear tell. Comparisons work well for me to grasp an idea. I also love bullet points.

So yeah, I guess I like LLM writing.

▲

ehnto 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, but you can read articles that predate LLMs which have the same so called tells.

	▲	lelanthran 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Sure, but you can read articles that predate LLMs which have the same so called tells. Not with such a high frequency, though. We're looking at 1 tell per sentence!

▲

yard2010 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're absolutely right, that isn't just good writing — that's poetry! Do you need further assistance?

▲

energy123 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Contrastive parallelism is an effective rhetorical device if the goal is to persuade or engage. It's not good if your goal is more honest, like pedagogy, curious exploration, discovery. It flattens and shoves things into categorical labels, leading the discussion more towards definitions of words and other sidetracks.

▲

0xpgm 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is such a thing as a distinct LLM writing style that is not just good structure. Anyone who's read more than five books can tell that.

And the comment itself seems completely LLM generated.

	▲	notahacker 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's not just false. It's the antithesis of true. It's not just using rhetorical patterns humans also use which are in some contexts considered good writing. Its overusing them like a high schooler learning the pattern for the first time — and massively overdoing the em dashes and mixing the metaphors
	▲	ehnto 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's true that LLMs have a distinct style, but it does not preclude humans from writing in a similar style. That's where the LLMs got it from, people and training. There's certainly some emergent style that given enough text, you would likely never see from a human. But in a short comment like this, it's really not enough data to be making good judgements.

▲

SCdF 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it indicates, culturally in the current zeitgeist, that an AI wrote it, it becomes a bad structure.