> This isn’t incremental improvement. This is a phase change.
> This isn’t about one person copying one idea. It’s about the fundamental economics of software changing.
That "this isn't x, it's y" really is a strong tell
> This isn’t about one person copying one idea. It’s about the fundamental economics of software changing.
That "this isn't x, it's y" really is a strong tell
How about “Not-Just Abuse”?
Not-Just Abuse (informal, pejorative)
Definition: The practice of knowingly deploying the “not just X, but Y” construction—typically via a mode-collapsed LLM—to simulate insight, inflate banality into profundity, and efficiently convert reader attention into nothing.
Which means people either can't tell, or don't mind.
Yep, at times, I dictate my thoughts with VoiceInk and have an LLM be an editor on P2 tasks so I can publish instead of have another unfinished idea that never sees the light of day
If you want pre-LLM samples, go ahead and scroll back or check my history—but I've got two kids to take care of and appreciate the publish assist :)
AFAIK that's the style of ChatGPT specifically. I haven't noticed that particular turn of phrase turn up in Gemini output, for example. Even if using GPT, via the Open AI playground you can easily control the system prompt and adjust the style and tone to your taste.
So if you see the default ChatGPT style, that's not "just" AI slop, it's low effort AI slop.
What annoys me personally is that both ChatGPT and Gemini like to output bullet point lists with the first key phrase highlighted in bold for each item. I do that! I've been doing that for years! Now many of my customers will likely start assuming my writing is mere AI slop.
I've become tempted to leave typos in my writing on purpose as a shibboleth indicating its human origins.
They f*cked it up. I am convinced ChatGPT will be a classic case of an early prodigy which gets surpassed by the better, second generation products. History is full of those. I think Tesla is another, recent one.
Itll take a bit of time to show up in the numbers overall, but within my reach I see the numbers changing.
Even with GPT models, it's only with 5 that instruction following has become strong enough that your instructions can override this tendency. During the whole 4 (and o) series, it wasn't something you could just override through a system prompt.