LLM intentionally randomize output to cover up all the plagiarism, but this largely destroys the consistency that cause writers to feel unique. Larger patterns still emerge but it just feels stale.
LLM intentionally randomize output to cover up all the plagiarism, but this largely destroys the consistency that cause writers to feel unique. Larger patterns still emerge but it just feels stale.
Models absolutely do have voices. Spend some time using them, and you'll see. I can easily tell Claude-written prose apart - a consequence of using it daily.
> not because of plagiarism concerns
I’ve second hand accounts of meetings focused on exactly the problem of how much verbatim text was being spat out and what to do about it. Some versions of specific models are far worse at this but it’s a huge legal liability not to address it.
LLM’s will happily regurgitate multiple paragraphs practically verbatim if you don’t specifically design them not to behave in this way.
Because ultimately when you design a system to best predict the next output based on a given input perfect replication of prior training is the correct response mathematically.