| One of the most common criticisms is the use of the emdash. This is a classic bit of English prose that is not problematic except as a stereotype used to dismiss writing for form rather than for content. Let's grab a few books off the shelf (literally). Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has four emdashes on the very first page: > It is also the story of a book, a book called THGTTG - not an Earth book, never... Isaac Asimov's classic The Last Question: three emdashes on the first page (as printed in The Complete Stories, Volume I) > ...they knew what lay behind the cold, clicking, flashing face -- miles and miles of face -- of that giant computer. Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves: Three emdashes on page 1 > Much like its subject, The Navidson Record itself is also uneasily contained -- whether by category or lection. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: Five emdashes on page one > Its drab tan damask walls...were unrelieved by even a single touch of color -- no painting, no mural -- or, seemingly, by any other ornament Other pages 1s: * Murakami - 1Q84: 1 * Murray/Cox - Apollo: 1 * Meadows - Thinking in Systems: 1 * Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov (Pevear/Volokhonsky translation): 4 * Caro - The Power Broker: 5 * Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach - 3 Honestly, when I started this post I expected to have to dig deeper than page 1. The emdash is an important part of English-language literature and I reject the claim that we should ignore all writing that contains it. |
Secondarily, I think there's a part of the discourse missing: the presence of a syntactic emdash in a sentence on the internet is not itself a strong signal of LLM-writing - but the presence of an actual emdash glyph (—) should raise some eyebrows, esp. in fora that aren't commonly authored in rich text editors (here, twitter, ...)