Post #2063196

@afilina A year ago or so, I was reviewing bullet points for a group project that one of the group members obviously generated via LLM. I figured "fine, I'll fix them up". They were these generic marketing statements like "the project is highly performant, streamlined bla-bla" or something. I kept thinking "okay, so this refers to X or maybe Y, so I can word it like..." and then I caught myself. These bullet points didn't refer to *anything*. They were just generic fluff. You could transplant these statements and put them on top of any project, and they would apply just as much. The context I was imagining was all in my head, *I* was interpreting these statements based on what *I* knew about this project. If I had managed to "fix up" the wording somehow, the actual characteristics of the project would not have come across at all, because from the outside, readers would not have my context. What made the project interesting was nowhere in these points and just changing the style of text wouldn't fix that. LLM output is a cognitive hazard. If you try to "fix it", you'll end up assigning meaning to the random text and then end up with something generic that is still just as bad from the outside. You have to start from a position of wanting to communicate something with your writing, and then fiddle with the style, otherwise you're just writing a horoscope.