[orthogonal_cube]

> Historically, the em dash (—) has served as a flexible punctuation mark used by human authors to indicate interruption, emphasis, or sudden changes in thought.

I learned about the em dash in high school and adapted it to my writing style very quickly for analysis and opinion documents. It felt natural given the amount of tangents I can go off into, particularly when including analogies for the reader’s understanding.

I was surprised to find out in my career that it was rarely used by others. Subconsciously I pulled back on how often I used it — especially when it was once suggested that frequent use could imply neurodivergence. Important and lengthy documents which I’d written and published (internally) at work still display them. On occasion there have been comments asking if I’d somehow accessed early AI models to assist in writing these works because of their presence. I think I averaged two em dashes per letter page.

I find myself on the fence with proposals like these. They have good intentions but they do not solve an issue at its core. An LLM is going to reflect one of many writing styles. If today it’s frequent em dash usage, tomorrow it could be frequent parentheses. Swapping Unicode characters becomes a cat-and-mouse game with the cat always two steps behind. The real issue is that the social contract is broken because LLM output is attempted to be passed off as human work. Review and revise that social contract instead to adapt to the existence of the new tools.

[embedding-shape]

> I learned about the em dash in high school and adapted it to my writing style very quickly for analysis and opinion documents. It felt natural given the amount of tangents I can go off into, particularly when including analogies for the reader’s understanding.

Isn't this what parenthesizes are meant for? Together with footnotes, I've always used them like that, but I guess it could also be just a cultural difference. My teachers in Swedish school always told me to put thoughts like that into parenthesizes, but I also just (barely) finished high school, could be related too.

> I find myself on the fence with proposals like these. They have good intentions but they do not solve an issue at its core.

I don't understand what the issue even is here, and the RFC also doesn't clearly outline it. Is "created ambiguity for human writers who have historically relied upon the em dash as a stylistic device" the problem here?

Trying to solve it by adding just another character and slap the label "Human Attestation Mark (HAM)" on it will just make LLMs eventually use those instead... Not sure what the point is to be honest.

[orthogonal_cube]

> Isn't this what parenthesizes are meant for?

Parentheses add emphasis to a sentence or statement. Normally the use of it allows the sentence to be complete with or without it.

Em dashes may also add or increase emphasis but are normally treated as an aside. Think of it as a comment by the author to inject themselves, sometimes in ways which do not form a complete sentence.

For example: When you read this sentence (in your mind) it should feel complete and correct. Perhaps you read in your own voice — something I don’t normally do — or without one at all.

> I don't understand what the issue even is here, and the RFC also doesn't clearly outline it.

The issue is written there but may not make sense unless you know someone who stylistically writes with high-than-average em dash usage. I, for example, get inquiries and comments at work from employees who ask what LLM model I used for “generating these reports” because of the presence of em dashes. They do not believe me when I say not a single word was written by LLMs because, “there’s an em dash. Only LLMs use em dashes!” This is categorically untrue and erodes the authenticity of work from people because of the correlation.

Their aim is to implement a new Unicode character which programs like text editors could inject when a person types an em dash. It attributes to a human being behind the document, typing characters out individually. Actions like copy-pasting text in bulk wouldn’t replace em dashes since it can’t attribute a human as writing it out.

[JCattheATM]

> Em dashes may also add or increase emphasis but are normally treated as an aside. Think of it as a comment by the author to inject themselves, sometimes in ways which do not form a complete sentence.

A semicolon is better for this purpose. Good writing doesn't have mad tangents anyway, there should be a flow and natural transition.

[orthogonal_cube]

> Good writing doesn't have mad tangents anyway, there should be a flow and natural transition.

In general, yes. Technical documents, research reports, news articles, and other formal publications should follow this.

Anything else which allows a bit more freedom in expression? I’d say it’s a matter of taste.

[JCattheATM]

I had freewritten, generally free expression type documents in mind when I wrote my statement, e.g. blog articles or opinion pieces. The problem is 'a matter of taste' can be used to excuse/justify anything.

[ssl-3]

That's more of a feature than it is a problem.

[Izkata]

Semicolons start a new thought, they don't mark an aside that lets you return to the original line of thought. Like in their example:

> For example: When you read this sentence (in your mind) it should feel complete and correct. Perhaps you read in your own voice — something I don’t normally do — or without one at all.

I would have used parentheses in both places, and semicolons don't work in either one:

> For example: When you read this sentence (in your mind) it should feel complete and correct. Perhaps you read in your own voice (something I don’t normally do) or without one at all.

[JCattheATM]

> Semicolons start a new thought, they don't mark an aside that lets you return to the original line of thought.

Sure they do. They're perfect for a related tangent without abounding the greater scope topic being discussed.

> I would have used parentheses in both places, and semicolons don't work in either one:

Parentheses work no question and I would argue are far more appropriate in that example since it's a minor elaboration/clarification and not a tangent, indeed, semicolons would not be appropriate for that.

[monodeldiablo]

You and Kurt Vonnegut seem to disagree here. He made liberal use of em dashes and hated semicolons.

And he was a giant of literature.

The problem with your definition of "good writing" is that it's entirely subjective. Just like Vonnegut's.

[JCattheATM]

> You and Kurt Vonnegut seem to disagree here. He made liberal use of em dashes and hated semicolons.

Got some samples you would care to share? I'm skeptical we disagree, honestly. One can have preferences for different writing styles, and write in a way that works with preferred punctuation rather than against it.

> The problem with your definition of "good writing" is that it's entirely subjective.

I disagree. Subjectivity is only true to a point. Someone might like Independence Day 2 more than Citizen Kane, but the latter is objectively a better film.

[monodeldiablo]

His word choice about semicolons is problematic for other reasons, so I won't quote it here, but Vonnegut made his views on punctuation and story structure very known. An internet search will provide it to you readily. And anybody who's read his works is familiar with his love of the em dash.

But more to his -- and my -- point: He also regularly encouraged people to flout rules and standards. His famous quote about semicolons, when read in its original context, is followed by a sentence with a semicolon!

He was a subversive author who abhorred mindless compliance and begged us to remain inquisitive. Subversion of accepted standards lies at the heart of all creativity. And as creative works enter the broader discourse, they themselves shape new standards. It's why our languages are always changing.

Your point about Citizen Kane and Independence Day 2 is nonsensical, and presumes we all have the same goals when consuming entertainment. I'm not going to engage in that argument.

[ImPostingOnHN]

A semicolon is for separating list items that follow a colon

[garciansmith]

Semicolons have more than one use.

"In regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would." Chicago Manual of Style, 18th Edition, 407.

[ImPostingOnHN]

An em dash would be better for that purpose — good writing should flow, like an em dash.

[ssl-3]

Punctuation in written English can be used in many ways. It's a very flexible language.

It is perfectly OK (it really is) to use parentheses -- and emdashes alike -- where they're useful; other punctuation like the semicolon, the comma, and even the Oxford comma are also OK.

There's not much that is disallowed in English. Most people have no reason to adhere to any particularly-rote style guide.

[dragonwriter]

> Isn't this what parenthesizes are meant for?

Parentheticals (including non-restrictive appositives) can be set off in English by either commas, em-dashes, or parentheses. There aren’t a lot of hard and fast rules for which is used where, though a common (partial) rule is for appositives without internal commas to be set off by commas and thise with internal commas to be set off with em-dashes. This obviously leaves open the handling of non-appositive parentheticals.

There are other uses of em-dashes, some of which softly overlap with other punctuation—I’m not aware of any common alternative to two em-dashes for ommission of partial words (useful in transcribing unclear sources, for instance.)

> I don't understand what the issue even is here, and the RFC also doesn't clearly outline it.

The RFC—fake, the maximum RFC number currently is 9945—is a joke.

[gavinray]

Parenthesis are for "taking a small detour from the current thought", either to add context or personal thoughts.

I use em-dash (written as "--" because I don't have an emdash key on my keyboard) as punctuation that sits between a semicolon and a period.

[xattt]

It depends on the goal of your writing. You can usually set off the same thought with a comma or a semicolon depending on sentence structure.

You can also just avoid the whole rigamarole and have a separate explanatory sentence.

Times change, good writers adapt.

[thewebguyd]

> especially when it was once suggested that frequent use could imply neurodivergence

Well that explains a lot. Interestingly enough, I've found that I naturally write like an LLM, or rather the LLMs write like I did. I wonder how many other patterns we attribute to LLMs are common in neurodivergent writing just as a result of so much of the training data being areas of the internet where I'd imagine neurodivergence is overrepresented vs. the general population.

[randallsquared]

I think a lot of us who spent some formative years reading and writing on usenet tend to write like an LLM, too. Plain text with lots of intentional presentation was a hallmark of the era.

[LoganDark]

Related, I've seen a lot of misidentification of Aspie writing as being LLM-generated lately. You seem Aspie to me (and parent does as well) so it makes sense that you'd also see the similarity.

[orthogonal_cube]

Ha, well I’m not on the spectrum but ADHD does have some overlap here and there.

[LoganDark]

I wouldn't agree that a lack of autism diagnosis is definitive because that diagnosis is primarily based on need for treatment. (Notice how the diagnostic criteria are exclusively variations of "finds it difficult to be normal".) I only see the tokenized / scratch-blocks writing style with Aspies. (This is likely what comes off as LLM-ish to others.) Non-autistics tend to be very sloppy/imprecise in comparison. ADHD primarily has to do with behavior (misbehavior in fact) and so wouldn't solely be responsible.

I have a few friends who are definitely at other places on the spectrum and yet not diagnosed. The funny thing is Aspies are the most likely to be diagnosed because their early development can be most obvious, but it's still not always caught. (This is supported by recent research identifying the presence of a finite number of distinct genetic phenotypes in the autistic spectrum.)

[orthogonal_cube]

> I wonder how many other patterns we attribute to LLMs are common in neurodivergent writing just as a result of so much of the training data being areas of the internet where I'd imagine neurodivergence is overrepresented vs. the general population.

It’s a very interesting thought experiment and if we had the data to support exploring it I’d love to see what we could find. I’d imagine that some subject-matter experts would probably be discovered as being neurodivergent to the surprise of nobody but themselves.

(They probably wouldn’t appreciate opening Pandora’s box!)

[diogocp]

> I find myself on the fence with proposals like these. They have good intentions but they do not solve an issue at its core.

It's clearly a joke à la RFC 3514.

[orthogonal_cube]

I couldn’t tell. I struggle with such subtleties.

I probably should’ve checked ‘454545’ in the ascii table. Seeing how it translates to ‘---‘ could’ve hinted towards that, but the clever use probably would’ve been applauded instead without thinking it was a joke.

Ah well. Egg on my face I suppose.

[wpollock]

RFCs have four digit numbers. This will likely change within a month or so; RFC 9945 was recently assigned so it won't be long. I wonder what RFC9999 and RFC10000 will be?

[atlbeer]

RFC9999 obviously should be to propose RFCs having 5 digits

[ssl-3]

I'm probably neither creative- nor connected-enough to do it myself, but somebody should see to it that either RFC9999 or RFC10000 is funny as hell and lands on April 1st.

[mrexroad]

I’ve leaned heavily on em-dashes over the years to help reduce my lisp-worthy overuse of parentheses. My add brain loves adding tangents, (likely unnecessary) context, and excessive completeness. I like both em-dashes and parenthesis b/c they’re visually easy to parse and skim past if the reader finds the extra detail unnecessary.

Funny enough, my kid asked me to proofread their essay the other week, and I noted some awkward comma usage and inconsistent voice. We talked through options for breaking apart sentence clauses as well as punctuation that could do the heavy lifting—specifically semicolons and em-dashes. They thought the em-dash looked cool af and semicolons looked harsh. “I love em-dashes, they’re so cool!”, was fun to hear a middle schooler say.

Ofc their teacher said that their essay was “likely 85% AI assisted.” Fortunately, the change log showed continual revisions during school hours on a managed device (ChatGPT blocked). I emailed their teacher that I had proofed it, highlighted an awkward spot or two, and pointed my kid to grammar devices they could explore themselves and apply if they wished. No harm, no foul.

Fast forward, my kid and their friend were talking about it and the friend told them to do what they do: intentionally sprinkle in grammar / spelling mistakes. le sigh I suggested to them that LLMs can easily do that too and they’re better off just learning to write well as it’s em-dash today and something else tomorrow; that the worst thing would be to dumb down style/vocab/grammar for fear of appearing LLM generated.

[pwdisswordfishy]

It should have been an en dash anyway if you are to put spaces around it.

[wavemode]

I was always taught that overuse of the em-dash is poor style. Oftentimes using more specific punctuation (comma, semicolon, colon, parentheses) more clearly communicates the structure of a thought. Em-dashes are a lot more freeform and informal. They communicate a similar tone as when you're speaking and you suddenly stop to mention something that just occurred to you.

In this sense, the idea that "em-dash = AI" has become something of a strawman. The mere presence of em-dashes isn't what indicates AI, it's the fact that LLMs use them so frequently, and use them for formal structure (where another punctuation mark would work better) rather than informal breaking up of related thoughts.

[thewebguyd]

> it's the fact that LLMs use them so frequently

That's the problem with all the LLM writing tropes, really. When used correctly, they are all helpful writing tools to get your point to the reader. The em-dash, "it's not X, it's Y", "Not X, Not Y, Just Z", "It's worth noting" (I use that one a lot in my own writing), etc.

It's not that the patterns are bad (they aren't), they are just over used.

[ACS_Solver]

> "it's not X, it's Y", "Not X, Not Y, Just Z"

Interesting how LLMs have their own preferences too. Those in particular are very often used by ChatGPT, while Claude until recently couldn't stop saying "You're absolutely right!"

I also have a problem now with "it's worth noting", I use it a lot, I still like it, but now it's a dangerous phrase because of LLM associations.

[Izkata]

> Em-dashes are a lot more freeform and informal. They communicate a similar tone as when you're speaking and you suddenly stop to mention something that just occurred to you.

Isn't that supposed to be en-dash? I swear I remember em-dash being more restricted in use.

[mkehrt]

No, an en-dash is used for a range, like "5–10", or in talking about two things and their relationship, like Franco–Prussian War.

[hmokiguess]

Same! I actually always preferred them because to me they’re more aesthetically pleasing, which reading aloud makes me think I might be a little neurodivergent.

[calvinmorrison]

conversely, and well, popularly, long sentences were given the kibosh thanks to authors like Hemmingway.

I was told the ellipses is the mark of a 4th grade poet and to never use it.

funny how things change!

[snoren]

>The real issue is that the social contract is broken because LLM output is attempted to be passed off as human work.

I don’t think writing with AI makes a creation "worse." If anything, it makes it better, if you bring genuine idea and imagination to it first.

The stigma comes from people being lazy and letting the AI do the heavy lifting of thinking. That’s where the "social contract" breaks. But using AI as a multiplier for your own voice and ideas isn’t "subpar"—it’s efficient.

If we start playing "whack-a-mole" with punctuation to find AI, we’re missing the point. The question isn’t what tool was used, but how much of the human's "creation" is actually in there.

[orthogonal_cube]

> The stigma comes from people being lazy and letting the AI do the heavy lifting of thinking.

This is essentially my point. The AI emits an answer and people will, in turn, copy and paste the result as-is. It’s a repeat all over again of people simply copy-pasting something from Wikipedia and trying to pass it off as their own.

[snoren]

Exactly. The tool isn't the problem. The effort is. Wikipedia didn't make research worse. Copy-pasting Wikipedia without reading it did. Same pattern, different tool.

[tiahura]

It’s used all the time in legal writing. The backlash seems like something out of idiocracy.

[swaits]

> especially when it was once suggested that frequent use could imply neurodivergence

When you think folks have come up with every inventive way to pathologize a personality trait, they start gatekeeping punctuation. It’s the ultimate reach—turning a standard grammar tool into a "symptom" just to fuel the modern obsession with finding new ways to be a unique victim.

Suggesting that a horizontal line is a diagnostic "tell" for neurodivergence is peak internet brain-rot. It’s not a condition; it’s middle-school English. We’ve officially hit a level of performative absurdity where people are trying to claim clout through a keyboard stroke. It’s not a disability; it’s a stylistic choice.