There is simply too much ad copy in the volume of AI training data.

>I have have been accused of being an AI for saying phrases like this.

I am not just using AI language, I am redefining the language paradigm

The more you interact with LLMs the more likely their language and tropes will become a load-bearing part of your own.

I agree that LLMs can make good points and defend their arguments, but if I'm talking (or debating) with someone online and it's obvious that they are just responding with LLM output, it immediately discredits them in my mind and is a pretty clear indicator that the actual person doesn't have a good understanding of what they're talking about... and I can go argue with an LLM myself. If I'm on reddit for example and someone starts obviously posting verbatim LLM output, there's no point to really continue to engage or read. I'm not saying it's wrong to use AI in these situations, but IMO, I'd at least expect the person using it to at least read the output and then use it to synthesize their own response in their own words. Literally copy and pasting a LLM output verbatim just signals to me that the person using it doesn't have the capability themselves take information and use it to formulate an opinion/idea/argument/whatever on the given topic. I'm interested in talking to the person, not an LLM.... I can go prompt the LLM about whatever topic myself.

if the argument is good enough, it should be worth writing on your own.

I’m a heavy LLM user but if someone gives me an AI-voice argument and presents it as their own, I reflexively dismiss everything they say going forward.

I can prompt the LLM myself thanks.

Hahaha, heavily down voted. Thanks I made a human written statement about this terse shit-post in another post :) Basically the argument is if human thought was transformed using an llm into a terse argument, don’t nit pick it, debate the argument and don’t attack the llm transformed human thought

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49339035

> Totally agree with the core argument. I understand there must be some etiquette in the space of llm-writing where writers must respect the readers enough to edit and review. Also, pages and pages of LLM content is not something anyone should be proud about sharing. But we are in this world where condensing an argument is so easy that in the busy lives we live, sometimes some arguments are made with LLMs online. If those arguments are pages, I understand the backlash, but if it’s a terse argument, then I would urge others to address the argument made rather than categorizing them under AI;DR, it’s like ad-llminem in my view.

Can you give us one example of something which does suffer from slop's massive bloat of wordage and vapid breathless formulations but is still useful as is?

I'm not dismissing the argument, I'm refusing to read a bunch of filler for an idea that (I'm guessing) could fit into 140 characters. Brevity is the soul of wit.

We also need to stop immediately dismissing certain writing tropes as being automatically LLM generated.

I'm re-reading an older fantasy series, and the amount of em-dashes in the text and similar tropes (you know, normal good writing) would easily be called out as "AI Slop" on this very forum, even though it was written in the early 90s.

> We are at a point where we cannot dismiss an argument because it was written using LLM

No we aren't.

It's a 400 word post stretched to over 6000 words, you go find the argument.