[huevosabio]

No, I don't have anything against using LLMs to write. My problem is that I enjoy reading people in part for diversity of style.

I already spend too much time reading LLM outputs on my own interactions. And I get sick of their style because of it. So when I read it during leisure time, it just triggers a gut rejection.

Especially because they are so formulaic / template-y.

[pegasus]

I get sick not only due to overexposure to LLM style, but also because I associate it now with a very poor substance-to-style ratio. LLMs tend to not only overuse but also misuse those turns of phrases it returns to obsessively. For example, enumerating three items where one is just another way to reference one of the first two, or it's of a different kind and doesn't really fit with the other two items. Or it will use "it's not just A, it's B" where B is unrelated to A, so "it's A and B" would have been more appropriate. Sacrificing logic for reasons of style. It also signals I should be on the lookout for possible hallucinations.

[huevosabio]

Oh spot on. Forcing the logic to fit the formula is an obvious giveaway.

I wish it had the Wikipedia style of writing as a default, as in, much more matter-of-fact writing (even if not everything is a fact).

I think part of the problem is that people overwhelmingly vote for this style with up votes and revealed preferences.

Maybe there should be a more meticulous feedback / prompt system where I can highlight a paragraph or sentence and ask annotate my feedback so that it doesn't go for that style.