←back to thread

296 points jakub_g | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
hliyan ◴[] No.45012749[source]
A chill ran down my spine as I imagined this being applied to the written word online: my articles being automatically "corrected" or "improved" the moment I hit publish, any book manuscripts being sent to editors being similarly "polished" to a point that we humans start to lose our unique tone and everything we read falls into that strange uncanny valley where everything reads ok, you can't quite put your finger on it, but it feels like something is wearing the skin of what you wrote as a face.
replies(12): >>45012940 #>>45013081 #>>45013106 #>>45013184 #>>45013226 #>>45013285 #>>45013423 #>>45013918 #>>45014061 #>>45014113 #>>45015666 #>>45022301 #
dsign ◴[] No.45013106[source]
The well is already poisoned. I'm refraining from hiring editors merely because I suspect there's a high chance they'll just use an LLM. All recent books I'm reading is with suspicion that they have been written by AI.

However, polished to a point that we humans start to lose our unique tone is what style guides that go into the minutiae of comma placement try do do. And I'm currently reading a book I'm 100% sure has been edited by an expert human editor that did quite the job of taking away all the uniqueness of the work. So, we can't just blame the LLMs for making things more gray when we have historically paid other people to do it.

replies(5): >>45013425 #>>45013545 #>>45013762 #>>45015526 #>>45016348 #
1. akudha ◴[] No.45016348[source]
I was listening to an interview (having a hard time remembering the name now). The guest was asked how he decides what to read, he replied that one easy way for him to filter is he only considers books published before the 70s. At the time, it sounded strange to me. It doesn't anymore, maybe he has a point