|
|
|
|
|
|
by lloydatkinson
269 days ago
|
|
|
> none of that sounds even remotely LLM-written. Did we read the same extracts? The nonsensical actions and movements of the lovers in the entire train scene? The obnoxious call and response structure? The absurd comparison between a grandmother skin and a spiders web because "silk"? > It can only ever directly reference the previous thing. That's not the case here. And the latest Hunger Games book isn't yet another amazon-published slopfest. It's been through a couple of rounds of editing, at the very least. I don't agree with your assessment here, "the last thing" can be literally anything the user prompts. Are you suggesting that because none of the previous books in the series are written by AI, that's somehow an argument that the latest in the series can't be? |
|
|
If a LLM was indeed used, the output was likely massaged to a degree that wouldn't be immediately obvious.
Now, my 2c: Writing is sometimes atrocious and sometimes authors jam in stupid things to maintain flow. If a person could make the connection between "Silk", "Spider", "weaving" and "grandmother" then another person could as well (even when one is "verifying" and another "proving"). And using those properly and in context and succinctly is far beyond most LLMs, and would require a fair amount of gambling, which would be out of character for someone whose writing prowess has been verified pre-LLMs.
As for what I mean by "directly reference the previous thing": LLMs can jam in well-known (to them) phrases and sentences and structures onto an idea/request. However, they are unable to loop upon the particulars of that idea/request in a coherent manner, which leads to slopification at large output sizes, and shows us the ceiling of the quality of writing a LLM can output.