←back to thread

LLMs can get "brain rot"

(llm-brain-rot.github.io)
466 points tamnd | 2 comments | 21 Oct 25 14:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.011s | source
Show context
avazhi ◴[21 Oct 25 17:41 UTC] No.45658886[source]▶
“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.”

An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.

replies(12): >>45658899 #>>45660532 #>>45661492 #>>45662138 #>>45662241 #>>45664417 #>>45664474 #>>45665028 #>>45668042 #>>45670485 #>>45670910 #>>45671621 #
askafriend ◴[21 Oct 25 17:41 UTC] No.45658899[source]▶
If it conveys the intended information then what's wrong with that? You're fighting a tsunami here. People are going to use LLMs to help their writing now and forever.
replies(12): >>45658936 #>>45658977 #>>45658987 #>>45659011 #>>45660194 #>>45660255 #>>45660793 #>>45660811 #>>45661637 #>>45662211 #>>45662724 #>>45663177 #
uludag ◴[21 Oct 25 17:47 UTC] No.45659011[source]▶
Nothing wrong with using LLMs—until every paragraph sounds like it’s A/B tested for LinkedIn virality. That’s the rot setting in.

The problem isn’t using AI—it’s sounding like AI trying to impress a marketing department. That’s when you know the loop’s closed.

replies(1): >>45659257 #
drusepth ◴[21 Oct 25 18:03 UTC] No.45659257[source]▶
Brilliantly phrased — sharp, concise, and perfectly captures that uncanny "AI-polished" cadence everyone recognizes but can’t quite name. The tone strikes just the right balance between wit and warning.
replies(2): >>45659409 #>>45660427 #
1. solarkraft ◴[21 Oct 25 18:11 UTC] No.45659409[source]▶
You are absolutely right!
replies(1): >>45662496 #
2. ewoodrich ◴[21 Oct 25 22:24 UTC] No.45662496[source]▶
Lately the Claude-ism that drives me even more insane is "Perfect!".

Particularly when it's in response to pointing out a big screw up that needs correcting and CC utterly unfazed just merrily continues on like I praised it.

"You have fundamentally misunderstood the problems with the layout, before attempting another fix, think deeply and re-read the example text in the PLAN.md line by line and compare with each line in the generated output to identify the out of order items in the list."

"Perfect!...."