[crassus_ed]

>Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.

Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?

[coldtea]

>Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?

Yes, people, in general, do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gjWlW0kRs

[nine_k]

I'd say, not "people in general" but people form other socioeconomic strata. This guy is not talking like us, suspicious. He talks in an elaborate and thought-through manner, not simply, so, he's not candid, double suspicious!

[basilikum]

I'm personally suspicious of anyone using the word candid.

[bonoboTP]

Not necessarily but it carries less weight than pre-LLMS. Obviously it's just a heuristic and not the whole story and telltale AI signs are not purely about good spelling and grammar. But I just appreciate some natural, human texture in my correspondence these days.

[tryauuum]

a vocabulary of certain width raises a question "does this creature understand the words it is using?". So yeah I mistrust them more

[irishcoffee]

> Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?

I don't trust anyone who doesn't use swear words, does that count?