I think this kind of language predates widespread LLM use, and has been picked up from that kind of writing. It's a "and here's where it gets interesting" pattern that people like Malcolm Gladwell and Freakonomics have used, even if the same thing could be said in a way that makes it sound much less intriguing.

The language of drama and import without meaningful substance. Words statistically likely to be used in a segue, regardless of the preceding or subsequent point. Particularly effective when it seems like you’re getting let in on a secret. Really fatiguing to read

A writing teacher once excoriated me for saying that something was important. “Don’t tell me it’s important, show me, and let me decide, and if you do your job I’ll agree”

I don’t know how a completion can tell when it needs to do this. Mostly so far it doesn’t seem capable

Isn't this the format of "hook-driven media" a constant stream of "second-act pivots" - where some new twist is added to a story to re-engage the reader and keep them reading.

BuzzFeed and Upworthy etc pioneered this for web 'news stories', then it got used in linkedin, twitter, and everywhere where views are more important than the content.

Ugh, you're making me remember the last time I listened to NPR. It's so bad.

I notice this very often in LinkedIn posts, and it's annoying, but I had not realized it was LLM-speak? Isn't it possible that people write like this naturally?

Nate B Jones videos ... YouTube channel "AI News and Strategy Daily" channel uses all of these. Every video.

I listened to a lot of NPR podcasts before LLM were around, and most of them are full of these kinds of filler phrases.

The general concept of a hook with delayed payoff is far from new, and generally one of the better ways at keeping attention.

It's also exactly the Mr beast playbook, and got him to the largest channel on YouTube.

Any system attempting to capture human attention will use these techniques, nothing LLM-specific here at all.

Apparently John Oliver was an LLM before they were even invented.

It's more about curating the things you're publishing. Why would I bother reading what you couldn't bother to read?

I don't really see reason to complain about tool use, so long as the result is cohesive, accurate and that ultimately means a human has at least read their own output before publishing. It's a bit like receiving a supposedly personal letter that starts "Dear [INSERT_FIRST_NAME_FIELD]," are you really going to read such a thing?

An article without telltale signs of an LLM is indistinguishable from an article written by a human, so yes.

My opinion is that literature and art will continue pushing the envelope in the places they always pushed the envelope. LLMs will not change this, humans love making art, and they love doing it in new ways.

Corporate announcements were never the places that literature and art were pushing the envelope. They were slop before, and they're slop now.