|
|
|
|
|
|
by iFire
3 days ago
|
|
|
> The "It's not X -- it's Y" pattern, often with an em dash. The single most commonly identified AI writing tell. Man I f*cking hate it. AI uses this to create false profundity by framing everything as a surprising reframe. One in a piece can be effective; ten in a blog post is a genuine insult to the reader. Before LLMs, people simply did not write like this at scale. Includes the causal variant "not because X, but because Y" where every explanation is framed as a surprise reveal, the em-dash dismissal "X -- not Y", and the cross-sentence reframe where the same noun is negated then repositioned: "The question isn't X. The question is Y." The information is hard to read because I had to run an https://tropes.fyi/ filter over the essay to make it readable. |
|
|
> The screen we shipped in January 2016 made two statements at once: pick intent said your plan matters, while the queue attached to it said what a ladder measures is negotiable. Players parsed the two separately, with total precision. They kept the first and burned the second down.
This is a classic AI construction to me that reeks of Markov chain thinking. The first half is probably the prompt to some extent. The second half ... doesn't actually say anything if you read it closely. Humans can write this sort of content-free fluff but usually they do it for a strategic reasons and not when they're trying to explain something. "Players parsed the two separately, with total precision" resolves a question of clarity that was never raised and for which there is no evidence of problem or solution (it is probably trying to say they understood and disregarded ... something that was basically elided). Then we have a tortured metaphor that doesn't tell us anything about what the players did.
It is quite tiring to read because you have to re-read things a few times to confirm that it didn't say anything and it isn't pretty wordwork worth reading on its own. Reading this is an exercise in trying to reverse-engineer the prompt.