Does the same effect happen in a society which rewrites all of its knowledge over and over using AI?

> PS. For obvious reasons, this post will fail Pangram tests.

Actual pangram to me says it's 100% human. Current pangram can flag different passages differently, but these are all flagged human by it, even the LLM written ones.

It would be interesting how many iterations of LLM-based PR reviews and fixes it takes to turn the code into horror. It’s already started happening.

It doesn't merely stabilise, it almost converges on itself

It would have been interesting to try something closer to the movie poster example; say have the AI rewrite the passage with the room toggling between the initial light-mode decor and a dark-mode decor, then back, repeatedly. Or even change the woman's name to "Mrs. Smythe" and back.

The existence of attractors (e.g. "stable at iteration 31") for AI models is one of the weirdest things in AI land. They are a wonderful space to explore, fascinating and full of horrors.

Meanwhile, my hat's off to the (currently) last comment on the page: "I like how the shear-sheathed legs still earned their keep — probably load-bearing for Mrs. Regan"

The same happens with humans, in e.g. chain stories, cumulative stories, etc.

Not unique to AI.

>I don’t write about generative AI much. Everyone else does; not much of consequence ever gets said.

I see he chose not to break with tradition.