Most active commenters
  • landdate(3)
  • JumpCrisscross(3)

←back to thread

LLMs can get "brain rot"

(llm-brain-rot.github.io)
466 points tamnd | 11 comments | 21 Oct 25 14:24 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
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 #
standardly ◴[21 Oct 25 19:30 UTC] No.45660532[source]▶
That is indeed an LLM-written sentence — not only does it employ an em dash, but also lists objects in a series — twice within the same sentence — typical LLM behavior that renders its output conspicuous, obvious, and readily apparent to HN readers.
replies(15): >>45660603 #>>45660625 #>>45660648 #>>45660736 #>>45660769 #>>45660781 #>>45660816 #>>45662051 #>>45664698 #>>45665777 #>>45666311 #>>45667269 #>>45670534 #>>45678811 #>>45687737 #
turtletontine ◴[21 Oct 25 19:45 UTC] No.45660736[source]▶
I think this article has already made the rounds here, but I still think about it. I love using em dashes! It really makes me sad that I need to avoid them now to sound human

https://bassi.li/articles/i-miss-using-em-dashes

replies(13): >>45660868 #>>45661962 #>>45663044 #>>45663414 #>>45663533 #>>45663715 #>>45664775 #>>45665728 #>>45665739 #>>45665745 #>>45665925 #>>45667267 #>>45667708 #
1. landdate ◴[22 Oct 25 00:08 UTC] No.45663414[source]▶
Suddenly I see all these people come out of the woodworks talking about "em dashes". Those things are terrible; They look awful and destroy coherency of writing. No wonder LLM's use them.
replies(1): >>45663537 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[22 Oct 25 00:23 UTC] No.45663537[source]▶
> Those things are terrible; They look awful and destroy coherency of writing

Totally agree. What the fuck did Nabokov, Joyce and Dickinson know about language. /s

replies(3): >>45663542 #>>45664865 #>>45666083 #
3. landdate ◴[22 Oct 25 00:23 UTC] No.45663542[source]▶
Nothing. They wrote fiction.
replies(2): >>45663578 #>>45665248 #
4. JumpCrisscross ◴[22 Oct 25 00:29 UTC] No.45663578{3}[source]▶
> Nothing

/s?

> They wrote fiction

Now do Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman.

replies(1): >>45663888 #
5. landdate ◴[22 Oct 25 01:18 UTC] No.45663888{4}[source]▶
I don't care for them either. What am I supposed to hear some famous names and swoon?
replies(1): >>45664018 #
6. prayerie ◴[22 Oct 25 01:40 UTC] No.45664018{5}[source]▶
You ok there?
7. eru ◴[22 Oct 25 04:25 UTC] No.45664865[source]▶
Their editors probably put them in?
8. fredoliveira ◴[22 Oct 25 05:40 UTC] No.45665248{3}[source]▶
I guess I'll ask: what's wrong with fiction?
9. roenxi ◴[22 Oct 25 08:01 UTC] No.45666083[source]▶
Great writers aren't experts in the look of punctuation, I don't think anyone makes a point of you have to read Dickinson in the original font that she wrote in. Some of the greats hand-wrote their work in script that may as well be hieroglyphics, the manuscripts get preserved but not because people think the look is superior to any old typesetting which is objectively more readable.
replies(1): >>45670432 #
10. JumpCrisscross ◴[22 Oct 25 15:15 UTC] No.45670432{3}[source]▶
> Great writers aren't experts in the look of punctuation

No, but someone arguing an entire punctuation is “terrible” and “look[s] awful and destroy[s] coherency of writing” sort of has to contend with the great writers who disagreed.

(A great writer is more authoritative than rando vibes.)

> don't think anyone makes a point of you have to read Dickinson in the original font that she wrote in

Not how reading works?

The comparison is between a simplified English summary of a novel and the novel itself.

replies(1): >>45679232 #
11. roenxi ◴[23 Oct 25 07:35 UTC] No.45679232{4}[source]▶
> (A great writer is more authoritative than rando vibes.)

A great author is equivalent to rando vibes when it comes to what writing looks like, they aren't typesetting experts. I have a shelf of work by great authors (more than one, to be fair) and there are few hints on that shelf of what the text they actually wrote was intended to look like. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if several of them were dictated and typed by someone else completely with the mechanics of the typewriter determining some of the choices.

Shakespeare seems to have invented half the language and the man apparently couldn't even spell his own name. Now arguably he wasn't primarily a writer [0], but it is very strong evidence that there isn't a strong link between being amazing at English and technical execution of writing. That is what editors, publishers and pedants are for.

[0] Wiki disagrees though - "widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare