kierangill
My revolt is against the cognitive stress of reading
generated text. A trope typically indicates I'm in for an
uphill read.I recently read this William Zinsser quote
that inspired a nickname for this: Clotted Claude [1].>
Nobody has made the point better than George Orwell in his
translation into modern bureaucratic fuzz of this famous
verse from Ecclesiastes:> > I returned and saw under the
sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to
the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches
to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill;
but time and chance happeneth to them all.> Orwell's
version goes:> > Objective consideration of contemporary
phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure
in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be
commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable
element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into
account.> First notice how the two passages look. The
first one at the top invites us to read it. The words are
short and have air around them; they convey the rhythms of
human speech. The second one is clotted with long words.
It tells us instantly that a ponderous mind is at work. We
don't want to go anywhere with a mind that expresses
itself in such suffocating language. We don't even start
to read.[1] https://blog.kierangill.xyz/clotted-claude
|
> masswerk
In contemporary YouTube-script wording:> The
Ecclasiast looked under the sun, but there was
something he didn't understand. Something that wasn't
right. Something that was not as it was supposed to
be. And here is what the Ecclesiast didn't understand.
Here is what nobody understood. Not then. Not in the
years that followed. Not now. It was not the swift who
won the race. Not the strong who won the battle. Not
the wise who earned the bread. Not the men of
understanding who gained the riches. Not the men of
skill who gained the favor. And here is what I found:
to any story of success, there is an element of
unpredictability and chance.(There are really just two
possible outcomes: either the article is right or in,
say, two years, we will be all writing and talking
like this, as in humans learning from mediamatically
reinforced human feedback.)
|
> > OroPla
I already notice LLM speech patterns in people
that use them a whole lot. If you speak more than
one language I recommend talking to LLMs in a
language that you don't use when speaking to
people.
|
> > > deanishe
How does someone end up knowing an extra
language they don't need anymore?
|
> > > > arrowleaf
Language learning is a fun hobby for some
people.
|
> > > sersi
I have a tendency to switch between different
languages when interacting with LLM depending
on the language of the most likely sources the
LLM will pull. It's interesting because the
llm speech patterns vary from language to
language. And I am much faster at noticing LLM
generated text in English (which I use 70% of
the time) than in French or Spanish.
|
> > > > cgio
In Greek they are still atrociously bad,
still feels like they translate an English
thought. Nevertheless, the etymological
insights they can give on words or Ancient
Greek passages is making reading the
ancients really fun.
|
> > > knollimar
The most frustrating one is when it does the
papering over analysis and adding pushback to
seem helpful. No, there shouldn't be a spot
"where you pushback" unless it makes sense and
responds to someone's concern!Like with an LLM
I would rewind the conversation. What do I do,
shame them?
|
> > vogelke
> in, say, two years, we will be all writing and
talking like thisShoot me now.
|
> > > ryandrake
> Shoot me now.I'm sorry, I can't generate
that because the request violates our content
policies.
|
> > somat
Very depressing, and I believe it.I am a bit of a
luddite in this domain and have so far managed to
resist the lure of using the generator to expand
my thoughts, and I still catch myself writing
"it's not just an X it's a Y" and other generator
type tells. If it infecting my patterns it is
totally entering the wider subconscious as "How to
write" (Sighs)
|
> > > jbeninger
That's not a generator tell when used
judiciously. It's a genuinely useful
construction that's been poisoned by
overgeneration.
|
> > > > masswerk
That's the flaw in RLHF: constructs tagged
as effective or sophisticated speech
become templates, are increasingly used
out of context (e.g., "not just A, not
just B, but C" is usually meant to provide
some synthesis and further the progress of
the text) and suffer from significant
overexposure. (And gone is the em-dash...)
|
> > > > > knollimar
I think the grating one is that it's
constructed to sound effective when it
shouldn't!Good points should be
rewarded confidence. I read so many
not X it's Y where the distinction
beteeen X and Y isn't relevant to the
discussion!
|
> > > > pessimizer
It's bad in and of itself the way LLMs use
it. They separate it into a weird
declaration when it's usually something
you'd say at the beginning and/or end of a
paragraph or passage where you're making a
case for that statement.It's part of how
LLMs often seem to repeat the same thing
over and over again. Most arguments are X
is Y (and the others are X is not Y, or X
is likely Y), and LLMs lean on "X is Y"
because it is the most distilled form of
that argument - a thesis minus the meat.
Also "This is not a Y, this is a
Z."They're just thesis sentences inserted
in inappropriate locations. The reason it
makes them overdramatic is because
separated from the argument, they seem
like they should be premises. Conclusions
without premises have the feeling of
demands.
|
> > > alan-crowe
The question is: how did your test reader
respond to the version without the "It's not
just an X, it's a Y." ? Perhaps the discussion
went:Test Reader: I got confused when you
started talking about X as though it were a
Y.Author: But it is a Y. I should flag that
up, where I introduce it.Alternatively, the
test reader commentsThe villains monologue
wasn't unhinged enough. He says that making
himself universal dictator is democratic
because he gives people what they secretly
desire. I feel he would express himself with
more empty rhetoric.Author: Agreed. I'll add
"It's not just democratic, it's not just
super-democratic, it's
ultra-democratic!!!"Test Reader: Scary!The
error lies in using "It's not just an X it's a
Y." for emphasis rather than to ward off a
likely misreading.
|
> > armchairhacker
That one starts with a glaring hallucination "he
didn't understand, nobody understood, not then or
now...". But the second part is IMO better than
the Ecclasiast, which has outdated phrasing ("nor
yet riches to men of understanding").> When I look
under the sun, it's not the swift who win races,
nor the strong who win battles, nor the wise who
earn bread, nor the smart who gain riches, nor the
skilled who gain favor. Ultimately, it's the
lucky; every contest has a degree of
unpredictability and chance.
|
> > > masswerk
The construction of meaning is totally
distorted, though. In the original, the first
part is entirely motivated by the conclusion,
and puts emphasis to this by a crescendo of
counterintuitive observations. This is what
made this memorable phrasing. In the version
suggested here, there's just an incompetence
attributed to the original author, underlined
by repetitive phrasing, so that the supposed
speaker may claim all the glory by uttering an
observation, which is in and by itself rather
banal. You wont think about this twice. Thus,
the entire construct ends in a whimper (so it
may fit the template) and there isn't really
any reason to put it that way, or to say this,
in the first place. Its perceived purpose may
be rather to occupy space and time (at the
cost of the recipient.)
|
> > demibabs
Oh my god, this is unbelievably accurate. Do you
practice this?
|
> > > masswerk
Of course. As we're told to prepare for the
new times... :-)On a more serious note, I
think, if we're going to criticise the kind of
distortions LLMs do to language and the
construction of meaning, we should be able to
come up with similar productions, just to
demonstrate where and how this goes
wrong.(Much like the early Wittgenstein
pointed out some constructs and declared, this
is not a meaningful sentence, in fact, it's
not a sentence, at all. And went on to define
the limits for what a meaningful proposition
may convey and what it can not, what we may
expect and hope for in an expression and what
we may not. In other words, is there even
enough in the toolset of LLMs to construct
meaning? Is traversing a semantic field in an
apparently well-formed sentence already
meaning or is it not?)
|
> > andai
Isn't that just ChatGPT?
|
> > Frieren
> two years, we will be all writing and talking
like thisI have seen kids talking like youtubers:
the top 10 things I like, or what I need to do
before I die (the kids is 9 years old), ... not
great (like repeating ad tunes or slogans) but not
as bad as AI bullshit-talk.My only hope is that AI
bullshit-talk is so boring and predictable that it
has low impact in our speech. And looking at what
other commenters say boring and insufferable seems
to be the case.
|
> sltkr
Orwell's entire essay (Politics and the English
Language) is well worth reading if you haven't
before:https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-fou
ndation/orwel...(I'm guessing Zinsser's comments are
from "On Writing Well", which you can also find online
even though it is still under copyright.)It's a bit of
a pet peeve when people include quotes on a blog post
without linking or otherwise references their source.
|
> > mrob
But Orwell's rule 4 should be ignored:>iv. Never
use the passive where you can use the
active.Orwell himself routinely ignores it, even
in the first sentence of the essay:>Most people
who bother with the matter at all would admit that
the English language is in a bad way, but it is
generally assumed that we cannot by conscious
action do anything about it.The second clause
could be rewritten in active voice by changing it
to "but people generally assume". But this would
make the writing worse, and Orwell, as a good
writer, probably didn't even consider the option
of making it worse, and therefore didn't notice
the passive voice.Passive voice is an essential
tool for all good writers of English. I always
give the example of the opening of Pride and
Prejudice [0]:>It is a truth universally
acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a
good fortune, must be in want of a wife.The joke
doesn't work in active voice. If you attribute
this acknowledgement to some specific group of
people then it's simply false, not a comedic
exaggeration.[0]:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42671
|
> > > squidbeak
> But Orwell's rule 4 should be ignored ...
Orwell himself routinely ignores it, even in
the first sentence of the essayOrwell can
answer you himself if you read just a little
further:> vi. Break any of these rules sooner
than say anything outright barbarous.
|
> > > bloak
Technically, I think, that first sentence, by
Austen, uses a passive participle but does not
use a passive voice for any finite verb. I
don't think that advice to avoid "the passive"
is intended to apply to that situation.For
example, nobody would seriously suggest
avoiding the passive participle in a sentence
like "Put the broken plate in the bin". ("Put
the plate that someone broke into the bin"?)
|
> > > everybodyknows
There's a rather simple reason this is so: A
thought is typically most powerfully expressed
in a sentence that puts the most surprising or
notable word last, immediately before the
period. Ideally, without any qualifying
adjective/adverb.And "... a wife." really
turns on the ears, no?So advice to prefer
active voice is not wrong -- but the skilled
writer adds other values into the balance.
|
> > latexr
> It's a bit of a pet peeve when people include
quotes on a blog post without linking or otherwise
references their source.You're peeved with good
reason. It's the blog equivalent of posting a
screenshot of an article to social media. People,
please post your sources! In the age of
misinformation, that's more important than ever.
|
> > kierangill
Mine as well. Thanks for the callout. It has been
added.
|
> jodrellblank
> "My revolt is against the cognitive stress of
reading generated text."I saw a comment on HN that
that was roughly "re: ChatGPT, when I write one
sentence and I get back three screens of lecture, I
don't consider that a 'chat'".I consider that comment
often when prompting Claude and hoping for a two line
response and getting an "it's important to note that
<blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah>".At some point it may as well be the
teacher in a Charlie Brown cartoon:
https://annotatedgilmoregirls.com/wp-content/uploads/2
017/11...audio version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04
|
> > rpdillon
Telling LLMs to be concise works.> Reword this
concisely:> I returned and saw under the sun, that
the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to
the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet
riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to
men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to
them all.> Ultra-concise: Talent and effort don't
guarantee success; luck and timing happen to
everyone.> Punchy: The best don't always
win-chance rules us all.> Modernized: Skill,
speed, and wisdom don't decide the outcome;
everyone is at the mercy of time and
circumstance.I feel like it did pretty well, and
made the point more clearly than either the
original or Orwell's rework (Gemini 3.8 Flash).Or,
as the version I've used for 30 years goes: "It's
better to be lucky than good." I do like Reagan's
addition, though: "But I find the harder I work,
the luckier I get."
|
> > > lubujackson
Concise helps clarity, but notice what still
is lost. The original version used multiple
perspectives to illustrate the point. It
invites consideration, putting yourself in the
shoes of each person before the "twist" is
applied to each. It makes the point more
visceral and memorable because it is
(slightly) lived instead of told.This is the
difference between writing to convince a broad
audience and writing to explain a point. AI
can summarize well but until we can
contextualize a richer framework for human
comprehension, LLMs will struggle to resonate.
|
> > > > rpdillon
I find the original poorly written, and it
did not, for me, invite any consideration,
because it didn't make much sense. "Bread
to the wise"? "Riches to men of
understanding?" Why would someone wise get
bread, or someone with understanding be
rich? What's the difference between "wise"
and "men of understanding", anyway?LLMs
didn't write "It's better to be lucky than
good.", but I find it both easier to
understand and easier to remember than the
biblical version.
|
> > mikewarot
>it's important to note thatHere on HN, I've
noticed that I pro-actively defend myself against
things I think will be said in counter to my
comments. I concluded it's being trained into
me.Alternatively, I've been banging on against the
same things that I see as insane so long that I
know all the objections.
|
> esjeon
I think Orwell did a great job there actually.Despite
its bizarre look, the sentence is evocative and
eloquent. It does make me get a clear mental image
from the very first word. It leaves little room for
roaming and guessing, as it firmly nails elements one
by one, and, by the time I reach the end of the
sentence, I get the full meaning almost
immediately.This sentence is not randomly written;
this is crafted with intention. TBH, it would take me
hours, if not days, to write a sentence this much
condensed and easy to understand. I seriously like
it.Perhaps, this is more about context -- which style
to use in which situation. I'm only guessing here,
but, since Orwell is offering an interpretation, he
probably chose to be more clinical. He probably had a
point to make and didn't want to risk vagueness
up-front.
|
> > ThrowawayR2
To be gentle, that some here are impressed by
Orwell's intentionally bad sentence indicates that
they need to improve their reading and writing
skills. Using complex words where they don't
introduce additional precision or meaning to fake
intellectualism is something basic that writing
classes warn against.Fun fact for the day, someone
coined a word for this type of puffed up, fake
intellectual writing: lexiphanicism (
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lexiphanicism )
|
> > > hombre_fatal
Orwell's bad sentence uses harder words than
it needs to, but it reworks the bible verse
into direct claims.Needing better reading
skills to understand the bible verse just
shows that it's not a good way to communicate.
If an HNer wrote like the bible verse, you'd
find them insufferably ostentatious. Just like
you wouldn't want Claude to use literary flair
when you're asking why your production
database stopped working.If you dumb down
Orwell's sentence back to simpler terms, it's
a point much better communicated than the
bible verse.Frankly the bickering in this
thread is due to the original HN comment
choosing a bad comparison because both
sentences are poorly communicated for
different reasons in this context: you
wouldn't want Claude to write either.
|
> > > > ThrowawayR2
I'll point out that the bible verse was a
translation for the common folk of their
central religious document in an age where
Christianity was dominant. Being able to
read it smoothly is a very low bar to
clear for the educated.
|
> > crabbone
When I read the Orwell's version, I immediately
had the same feeling I had when reading
mathematical proofs. I hate so much to hunt the
preceding text for anaphora resolution... It's
just such a bad and pretentious way of writing.
It's hostile to the reader with the side of
flaunting author's superiority.It's like having to
sit through a party with acclaimed academics:
every single one is so full of themselves, they
will constantly one-up each other by belittling
everyone in their workplace s.a. to make you feel
how great of an intellect they possess and how
much more they would accomplish, had they not been
surrounded by all these bumbling idiots.
|
> > > yummybrainz
I agree that it's not great style for just
conveying information clearly and plainly (e.g
I'd hate to read documentation written like
this) but I'd argue that here, the medium is
part of the message.It's supposed to sound dry
and depressing and somewhat sterile.> It's
hostile to the reader with the side of
flaunting author's superiority.I think if
someone deliberately obfuscates meaning to
sound fancier when the point is to communicate
information directly, sure, I'd agree. But
writing is often art, and I think demanding
effort from the reader is fair in that case. I
wouldn't make a blanket generalization like
that.
|
> > > > crabbone
I agree in that I don't know in what
context Orwell wrote the quote above.
Maybe it made more sense the way it fitted
in that context.Whenever this kind of
discussion happens, I recall Andrey
Platonov (a Russian writer, who was so
weird in his rejection of the "decadent"
parts of speech and sentence clauses that
he'd never use passive voice or adverbs,
would never put two adjectives side by
side etc. that even Soviet censorship
decided to ban him.) His works were added
to the mandatory high-school reading list
back around the collapse of the Soviet
Union. I studied book publishing in
college right around that time and had
taken an elective in editing (the process
of preparing a manuscript for publication,
especially for the more technical fields,
like encyclopedias or handbooks). My
professor was a huge fan of Platonov, and,
probably, forever spoiled for me whatever
people enjoy when they read flamboyant or
contorted prose like the one quoted
above.One thing that would send my
professor into a fit of rage about that
quote is that the real subject is people:
it's talking about how people incorrectly
rationalize the connection between effort
and outcome. But, it's written in a way
that, formally, the subject is... "the
consideration", making it necessary for
the reader to work back from the formal
towards intended before they can figure
out what the author was really trying to
say.
|
> > > > voidhorse
I disagree. There is plenty of writing
that operates at the same level of
abstraction (philosophy, mathematics)
without being needlessly convoluted.Orwell
is a master precisely because he
understood language deeply enough to be
able to produce a monstrosity on both the
level of content (undue abstraction) and
structure (winding, breathless syntax).
|
> > caidan
My god, to read this thread is to gaze into the
abyss.
|
> > > pibaker
Fire and brimstone upon San Francisco.
|
> > knollimar
"a clear mental image from the very first
word"Nothing meaningful was said for 9
words.Objective consideration of contemporary
phenomena compels the conclusion that the words
appearing here could be anything
|
> > grey-area
Read some Orwell:
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-founda
tion/orwel...
|
> > > esjeon
Ah, I just read through it. That's was a fun
read.> This is a parody, but not a very gross
one. ...So, Orwell wrote the second sentence
as a parody of the first sentence, using the
modern English that he was criticizing in the
essay.> ... in the middle the concrete
illustrations - race, battle, bread - dissolve
into the vague phrase 'success or failure in
competitive activities'. ...> ... The whole
tendency of modern prose is away from
concreteness. ...> ... The second contains not
a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite
of its 90 syllables it gives only a shortened
version of the meaning contained in the
first.He tried to argue that the second one is
worse, but, unfortunately, he successfully
simulated one possible interpretation of the
original. Sure, the parody has narrower
meaning, but it is a valid subset of the
original meaning, which is still very
significant tbh. This justifies the reduction
of "race, battle, bread" into "success or
failure", invalidating one of his points.Also,
the parody is not necessarily less concrete.
It replaced poetic expressions in the original
with words that are bloated, for sure, yet
more concrete. It does have awkward
expressions, but every word plays a role in
the sentence. This basically conflicts with
one of his criticisms in the essay -
meaningless words.Funnily enough, his another
example - "some comfortable English professor
defending Russian totalitarianism" - also
fails to capture the nature of the modern
English. He points out the "euphemism" towards
the violence as an issue of style, but, no,
that's the whole purpose of it, and his
example really just excel at it. Style-wise,
again, the writing is very solid.All in all,
Orwell simply failed to properly simulate what
he was trying to criticize. Good examples of
"modern English" can be found in the earlier
part of the essay, basically written by other
people. Those examples do fit into Orwell's
criticisms.
|
> > > > mpalmer
He tried to argue that the second one is
worse, but, unfortunately, he successfully
simulated one possible interpretation of
the original
All in all, Orwell simply failed to
properly simulate what he was trying to
criticize
If I was going to read "Orwell was wrong
about English" anywhere, I guess it was
always going to be HN.The sheer pomposity
of your remarks here is the biggest clue
that you are not writing them yourself.
|
> > > > > esjeon
No, my view is more like that he was
too good at English to write bad
English that he was criticizing. The
examples he wrote are simply too sharp
to fit well into his own criticisms.
They are formulated so well that you
can just "welp, my intention was
different".EDIT: This kinda reminds me
of the musical theory of harmony.
There are strict rules to follow in
music composition, but when you go
against every single rule in major
scale, and keep your work sound nice,
you eventually get a minor scale piece
that keeps every rule that you tried
to break through.Same here. He
probably wrote a disgusting piece in
his standards, but kept the writing
sane, and eventually it became a
proper prose - simply with disgusting
intention in his standard.That's what
I think happened here.
|
> > > > > > mpalmer
No, my view is more like that he
was too good at English to write
bad English that he was
criticizing.
Are you sure it's not more likely
that we are all way worse at
reading compared to the average
mid-20th centry reader? The
examples he wrote are simply too
sharp to fit well into his own
criticisms.
So he's an overeducated dolt who
thinks he's making a good point,
and you - and no one else in the
hundred years since - found his
fatal mistake? They are formulated
so well that you can just "welp,
my intention was different".
This is not even a sentence.
|
> > > > > > esjeon
> we are all way worse at reading
compared to the average mid-20th
centry reader?I would say English
has changed. Modern English
speakers, especially those in
academia and technology, prefers
explicit styles over poetic and
nuanced ones. There are a lot of
factors at play (e.g. i18n, the
internet, education, literature)
but I'm too lazy to cover them
here.> you - and no one else in
the hundred years since - found
his fatal mistake?First, the essay
is from 1946 - 80 years ago.
Second, why not? Often-times, a
different perspective is all that
takes to discovers something new
in the old.I think you're trying
to make an appeal to authority
here - a logical fallacy. You're
basically saying I cannot
criticize his essay because Orwell
is a great writer.Also, my point
is neither fatal nor about
mistake. Orwell's examples still
demonstrate his claims in a
relative sense, all within the
context of the essay. However,
when you pull them out of the
context and put them out in the
wild, it's going to be very
difficult to say those are bad
writings right away, because,
compared to other bad writings,
those examples are very solid and
straightforward.> This is not even
a sentence.It is informal, sure,
but I intentionally made it
colloquial with something called
bare quotation, a style commonly
used in informal conversation. I
wanted to avoid being "an
overeducated dolt" and send a
friendly gesture too, oh, but you
chose to put that on a pitchfork.
Bravo, clap clap.
|
> > > > > > grey-area
> Also, my point is neither fatal
nor about mistake[sic]. Orwell's
examples still demonstrate his
claims in a relative sense, all
within the context of the essay.
However, when you pull them out of
the context and put them out in
the wild, it's going to be very
difficult to say those are bad
writings[sic] right away, because,
compared to other bad
writings[sic], those examples are
very solid and straightforward.You
should take this as an opportunity
to improve your English and widen
your reading, rather than trying
to win a silly argument on a forum
with 'logical fallacies' and other
such humdrum wikiphilosophy. I'm
not even sure what you meant to
say in this paragraph, it's not at
all clear I'm afraid.Your
perspective on this is entirely
wrong, starting with a mistake
about the intentions of Orwell and
the quality of the text (which is
deliberately obtuse and plain
awful in so many ways). If you
can't easily interpret the
biblical text, that's fine, it is
quite old, but there is really no
excuse for saying that Orwell is a
bad writer or .But Orwell's
example here is an example of bad
writing, not good, and was
produced deliberately as an
anti-pattern. It has no redeeming
features, and deliberately so. If
you read 1984, you'll see further
what he was getting at and
rebelling against - a tendency to
use words to obscure and twist
meaning rather than transmit it.
|
> > > > > > esjeon
> widen your reading, rather than
trying to win a silly argument on
a forum with 'logical fallacies'
and other such humdrum
wikiphilosophy.Yeah, sure, the
paragraph there is pretty bad, I
admit. I was having an technical
issue w/ my phone. But, look, did
you really read my comment, the
whole set of it? It's not even
about philosophy. I'm just talking
about a little /finding/ that
Orwell's examples of bad-English
is much better than what you
usually find in your daily
lives.I'm not even arguing here,
because you people avoid engaging
w/ my point itself. It's more like
I'm only repeating myself again
and again and again. I'm not
raising anything new.> Your
perspective on this is entirely
wrong, starting with a mistake
about the intentions of Orwell and
the quality of the text (which is
deliberately obtuse and plain
awful in so many ways). If you
can't easily interpret the
biblical text, that's fine, it is
quite old, but there is really no
excuse for saying that Orwell is a
bad writerFirst, if you were
talking about my first comment, I
did mention that "I'm only
guessing". I did clarify that I
didn't read at that point. Someone
replied with a link to the essay,
so I read it, and only then I said
"I [had] read it".Second, I never
said the original is bad. I only
said the parody is pretty good,
perhaps because of its brutal
explicitness, which the first one
lacks comparably.Also, I've been
saying that Orwell is a bad
/bad-English/ writer, not a bad
writer. His proficiency in English
doesn't imply any proficiency in
reproducing the bad-English he was
criticizing. This part is
childish, sure, but it was
supposed to be /fun/.> But
Orwell's example here is an
example of bad writing, not good,
and was produced deliberately as
an anti-pattern.I totally agree
here, but ...> It has no redeeming
features... this is the part I
disagree with.Sure, on the
surface, they are chokingly bad. I
definitely agree that he removed
certain qualities from those
examples, and, for demonstration
purposes, they serve the
purpose.However, if you offer
those examples completely
out-of-context, it's going to be
difficult to dismiss them simply
as bad writings. Their logical
flow is very natural, and his word
choices are very precise. It is
much better /formulated/ than a
lot of real-world bad English
writings. I definitely sense
/professional touches/ from those
examples. That's why I said that
it would take me hours, if not
days, to write such sentences by
myself.In short: badly written,
well formulated.
|
> > yummybrainz
I agree!Both versions are great: the former is
poetic and grand and would fit right in in a
fantasy text; the latter is dry and informative
and requires much less mental effort to translate
and extract meaning from (though still more than
"normal" text.I could imagine a third version
that's clearer than the second and still nearly as
poetic as the first.
|
> > tudelo
Well, I can tell what sort of angle you most
enjoy. Anyways -- I think there is GOOD writing
and BAD writing, but only subjectively. So if you
enjoy it, power to you. It's certainly not random,
but it is the sort of verbosity that turns off 99
percent of the people that would read it given a
comparison. I find the former rather eloquent.
|
> > emmelaich
Are you sure you're referencing the correct quote?
Are you familiar with original? Did you you use AI
to write this comment?
|
> > voidhorse
> Despite its bizarre look, the sentence is
evocative and eloquent.No it isn't. It trades
concrete imagery for empty abstractions which
could encompass just about anything and are
basically meaningless.If you think this is good
writing, you need a serious detox from corporate
America.
|
> > mpalmer
TBH, it would take me hours, if not days, to write
a sentence this much condensed and easy to
understand.
This is ridiculous on its face. Did it take you 45
minutes to write your own comment?
|
> somat
My take is that the generated stuff is terrible for
communications.It feels great to use, direct your
machine minion to fill out your thoughts for you, but
holy hell does it suck to be on the receiving end.
Least of all is the disrespect, they don't care enough
to even talk to you but worse is having to try and
reason through that big incoherent blob.Probably to
only reasonable thing to do is to try and get your own
mechanical agents to produce summaries. Inventing the
lossy expansion algorithm(like compression but things
get bigger on the wire), And we wept.Now I am all
depressed because it is probably inevitable,
apparently thinking is hard and in general people are
all to happy to outsource it to the machines.
|
> > AnimalMuppet
But even that is grossly inefficient.Let's say I'm
making an HN comment. I have a one-sentence idea,
I get an LLM to expand it into an
impressive-looking (or oppressive-looking) wall of
text, and then I post that. Well, let's say 10
people see it. And each one of them has to either
plow through it on their own, or paste it into LLM
to get the summary.But even with one-to-one
communication, it's still terrible, as you say.
You can't be bothered to clarify your idea, but
you're trying to use an LLM to make up for your
lack of thought? So you're going to make me plow
through that huge blob of text to try to
understand what your thought was, the thought that
you couldn't bother to actually really think
through. That's far less efficient than you, the
sender, actually doing the thinking.But it lets
the sender be lazy. And the sender is the one in
control.
|
> > matheusmoreira
I used to sympathize with those on the "receiving
end" but I'm becoming extremely desensitized to
their plight.The sheer amount of hatred they level
towards anyone who's using AI or is even just
positive towards it is something to behold.
They've got racism-tier slurs for us now.The
negativity and stigma are so strong I've stopped
caring. I don't feel like putting in human effort
for the benefit of these hateful people anymore.
|
> > tomjen3
The problem is that people use llm to expand with.
They should use them to condense with.
|
> lelanthran
The problem is not the LLM prose appearing everywhere,
it's the legions of AI-boosters appearing in every
thread attacking anyone who complains.Apparently, even
though they want to spew AI prose everywhere, they
want it read by humans, not by other bots, so when a
few holdout places are insisting that prose be human
authored they fight very hard against the rule.
|
> > quietbritishjim
I don't think I've ever seen someone on HN say
that. Many people would say that AI makes them
more productive at coding, not that the output is
nice to read.
|
> > > lelanthran
> I don't think I've ever seen someone on HN
say that.A 5m search got me the
following:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id
=49410941https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=
49411042https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4
9059571This thread, in particular, stands out
- reader makes the claim that Pangram found
that the US constitution was 100% AI
generated, when others tried they found 0% (or
close to it)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48378191
|
> > > > card_zero
Those are not that. The first two are
people complaining about other people
incontinently identifying text as AI,
because it's annoying to listen to
unreliable hunches and aspersions. The
second two are complaining about AI
detectors not being very reliable. The
claim made in the last one is a casual
anecdote about "an AI detector",
presumably told because it's amusing. It
isn't a vehement statement about how you
must accept slop into your life.
|
> > > > > lelanthran
Sorry, to me any complaint about
people complaining about prose is a
vehement statement about accepting
AI.I feel that if one doesn't want to
send that message, they shouldn't be
attempting to convince others that
rejection of AI prose must stop.
|
> > > > > > Seattle3503
Yeah, intentionally or
unintentionally there is often at
motte-and-bailey fallacy flavor to
their arguments. The motte is that
it can sometimes be hard to
identify AI writing, the baily is
that we should accept AI wholesale
and stop worrying about AI
writing.
|
> > > eru
I would say that AI prose is often still a bit
iffy, but I would disagree with anyone who
would want to argue that this is any
indication that AI prose will always be bad in
the future.
|
> > milkshakes
i am a big fan of llms and the possibilities they
enable. but i also find this type of behavior
extremely rude! ai;dr for life.
:is-your-human-around: is my preferred emoji for
reacting to such behavior
|
> > > lelanthran
The problem is that the AI commenters
ironically want human readers for their
generated content.I feel that if you want
humans to read your stuff, those humans
insisting that you write your own stuff is not
an unreasonable position to take.
|
> andai
I actually found the second one easier to understand.
What the hell does "time happeneth" mean?Despite our
best efforts, events continue to occur!
|
> > bigstrat2003
> What the hell does "time happeneth" mean?It's
perfectly clear from context. Time and chance are
the governing factors in success, not intrinsic
merit.
|
> > > andai
Well what does time mean in this context?
Patience? Foresight?I've actually spent the
morning journaling on the value of having a
long time perspective. So initially I thought
the author was saying something to that
effect.But the other translation leaves out
time altogether! So honestly I don't know what
he was trying to say. I guess it's just some
archaic idiom for luck?
|
> > > msm_
It may be perfectly clear to you. For me (a
non-native speaker) reading the first verse
required a significant focus and I still
didn't get what the author meant (only the
general vibes).The second verse was
immediately clear.
|
> > huurtehoog
I offer an alternative translation directly from
the original hebrew:"Surely the testimony of
misfortune will be imposed at any season"
|
> bryanrasmussen
I came to this post and saw that Orwell had forgotten
to mention money as the prerequisite of success, which
was very unlike him.
|
> > squidbeak
Remember he's transcribing a scripture into bad
modern prose, instead of riffing on it.
|
> cainxinth
"It's better to be lucky than good." - Lefty Gomez
|
> bananaflag
Why dont they train LLMs not to speak like that? Is it
some tragedy of the commons here?
|
> > rcxdude
LLMs get a lot of finetuning, but I suspect there
are two things that can cause this kind of
writing:Firstly, some parts of the RLHF involve
human graders on the LLM's performance. I suspect
their general bias towards a punchy, persuasive
writing style could come from what biases the
graders towards preferring that response,
especially in shorter segments and when the grader
is not focused on writing styleSecondly, later
parts of the finetuning involve reinforcement
learning on achieving certain tasks which are
automatically graded: stuff like coding tasks. I
think this can create a kind of feedback loop
where the style drifts further, and you get the
kind of LLM tics which are even more extreme (it
might be that they incidentally help somehow with
the actual tasks, or it might be a drift that
comes from the grader also now being an LLM or
some of this finetuning happening on output from
other models). The more recent claude models seem
to suffer from this a lot, moreso than earlier
ones.
|
> > > valleyer
I'm not an expert, but... might this indicate
the need for "sub-models", meant to be invoked
by the general model to write good prose for
it? Those sub-models would not be RLed on code
(or any algorithmic-feedback tasks that might
reinforce bad writing), and could specifically
be tuned for prose, even at the cost of
general intelligence (which would be provided
by the worse-at-writing more general model).
|
> > tudelo
You ever wonder why recent claude models speak in
riddles? I dunno, maybe all those "rare" books?
They may have been rare for a reason.
|
> > > knollimar
Rare like a steak not like a treasure.
|
> > ahepp
A bigger question I'm interested in is why do LLMs
speak like that in the first place? Is that really
what you get if you took the average of the
English language? It would be difficult for me to
believe that.Is there something about tuning for
desirable qualities that forces LLMs to have this
voice?
|
> > > gosub100
It wouldn't surprise me if it takes more
effort to be succinct. There's some famous
quote from I think Mark Twain "this letter
would have been shorter but I ran out of
time". Just my guess
|
> > > Ygg2
Not average of English. Average of all written
text. Which probably includes lots of
marketing and hypetexts.
|
> > > > AnimalMuppet
And The New Yorker - writing that is
written to sound impressive, and takes
forever to get to the point. I hated that
kind of writing in The New Yorker long
before LLMs made it cool to hate that.
|
> > schubidubiduba
They are certainly trying to
|
> amemi
Personally, I think Orwell's version is a lot easier
to read. I read the Ecclesiastes verse several times
and can't really get it: "time and chance happens to
everyone"? Okay?While phrases like "contemporary
phenomena" and "tendency to be commensurate" are a bit
over-the-top, summarily the picture is conveyed much
more clearly imo: Luck plays a factor, no matter how
good you are.I don't see how "nor yet favor to men of
skill" is more natural or clearer, at least to the
modern reader.
|
> kome
english is my second, third language, and i understood
the second immediately, but not the first. go figure.
|
> tedggh
It appears LLMs are much better at writing during a
debate than when explicitly asked to write. The moment
LLMs are tasked with composing a blog article or intro
for a book they introduce all the nuances that
identify the output as AI slop.
|
> tdeck
Am I the only one that finds the second one much
easier to parse?
|
> > bryanrasmussen
The first is of course from the King James Bible
which for centuries was essentially a standard
that all English speaking peoples aspired to. If
you find that version difficult I would expect
much literary writing before the 1940s also seems
difficult. This is just to say I recommend reading
the King James even if you are an atheist, as I
am.I also have to say that the first strikes me as
being written by someone that might be smarter
than I am, the second as being written by someone
significantly less intelligent than I, yet somehow
placed by society in a position of authority over
me.
|
> > > tdeck
In the context of newly written work in the
modern era, I would argue it's best to use
grammatical constructions that are used in
modern 20th/21st century English, at least
most of the time. Those who wrote the KJV were
trying to be expressive but the whole point
was to do so in language that ordinary people
would be familiar with.> the first strikes me
as being written by someone that might be
smarter than I amThis is why Joseph Smith
tried to imitate the language of the King
James Bible in the Book of Mormon, albeit not
very successfully.
|
> > > > bryanrasmussen
yes, I am very schooled in Smith's
attempts.
|
> > > jodrellblank
My guess is that if you were betting on a
race, you would put your money on the swift to
win, and "sometimes fast runners trip over"
wouldn't seem as smart.The rewrite stinks of a
consultant's report where humor is frowned
upon, business is serious, and there's no way
we could write in plain words that the CEO got
there by chance. Objective consideration
distances the author compared to the
subjective original I have returned and [I
saw]. The original gives examples, the
rewrite's contemporary phenomena is vague
enough to avoid calling out the board of
directors. A compelled conclusion is one the
author is - reluctantly, you understand -
forced into. Innate capacity leaves an escape
hatch for a education from a good school and
life experience to excuse the board again.
It's not an honest rewrite of the same
sentiment - a subjective take that life isn't
fair and it's not just here, and us.A
plenitude of observations undertaken in a
multitude of geographically and culturally
diverse locations has convinced this author of
the incompleteness of the following claims:
races are won by the swift, battles are won by
the strong, bread is earned by wisdom, riches
are earned through applied understanding, and
favours return to skilled persons. Absent are
the effects of time and chance on all
situations, of which experience has made
abundantly clear. Other phenomena may too have
their inputs, e.g. underhanded
manipulation.(Swiftness is still the best
available predictor of who will win a race,
though, and training cardio, muscles, diet,
electrolytes, mental endurance, is the best
available way to increase your chances of
winning and not dropping out, tripping over
from tiredness, or getting cramp, even though
you can't change your innate ability or age,
and time and chance happeneth to ye
regardless).
|
> > dragonfax
Yeah, I found Orwell's easier to understand and
quite fast to read as well, but I think it's just
because of the style of writing of the first one.
It's from an earlier style of prose that I'm just
not used to.I also don't have a problem with large
words as long as I'm well familiar with the words.
The length of a word has nothing to do with the
complexity of its meaning. We just have a limit to
the number of pronounceable combinations of 5
letters.
|
> > pavinjoseph
I had to reread the first one but I wanted to read
it!
The second one was understood on the first scan
but was a chore to read.Does that make sense?
|
> > > jimmaswell
The second one was very clear and to the
point. Parsing it was rewarded with instant
understanding and I enjoyed the word choice.
The first one was just annoying; I could tell
it was just listing a bunch of pointless
analogies to try to make its point sound more
grandiose so I immediately started skimming,
and didn't come away feeling like it meant
much other than "we all die in the end". The
second one made an actual point and was the
one that made me want to read it. The first
one was the chore for me.
|
> > > > lljk_kennedy
The first communicated a feeling. A brief
flutter in the soul of a picture of
recognition, painted for your mind's eye
with care by the author.The second
transcribed considerable information
bandwidth through intentionally structured
word choice for maximal density.
|
> > > > > AnimalMuppet
Yeah. The first one was like a
minimalist painting, the second like a
software specification.I'm pretty sure
that the general public does not want
to read software specifications.
|
> > > > > > jimmaswell
I can't see how you could apply
"minimalist" to that excerpt. It's
maximalist, hammering the same
point over and over and over when
one or two examples with a little
more worldbuilding per example
would have done better if they
were going for "evocative".If I
had to pin a subjective experience
to reading it, it would be that of
being stuck in a car as a teenager
with a parent who's ranting about
whatever set them off that day and
won't move on from repeating their
grievance in different words when
you got the point five minutes
ago. In contrast, the second feels
like having an enjoyable and
productive level-headed
conversation with someone who
respects you and trusts you to
understand the words.
|
> > > buttercraft
That was exactly my experience, and I found it
to be a little bit depressing.
|
> > jfengel
The grammar is more straightforward. It has some
extraneous words, and makes conspicuously bad
choices of vocabulary, but it's still a more
direct statement.
|
> > ahepp
I wonder if this is due to experience with reading
technical documentation?I think the second
requires deeper concentration, but is still quite
readable compared to the kind of low-content
engagement / SEO stuff one read on the internet
even before LLMs
|
> > layer8
You're not. The first is vague and requires
significant interpretation, the second is very
clear and to the point in what it's saying.
|
> > macleginn
This is why almost 100% of hard and social
scientific discourse reads almost exactly like
this these days.
|
> > kamma4434
I found it an improvement too
|
> > Barbing
Second helped explain the first, appreciated
having both (but I'm no genius or nothin').
|
> > > Kerrick
Other translations keep Zinsser's preferred
lack of fuzz but avoid using "is ... to" for
possession.For example, the Lexham English
Bible:> I looked again and saw under the sun
that the race does not belong to the swift,
the battle does not belong to the mighty, food
does not belong to the wise, wealth does not
belong to the intelligent, and success does
not belong to the skillful, for time and
chance befalls all of them.
|
> > > > Barbing
Easiest! Loses some color, gains much
clarity.
|
> > > > > AnimalMuppet
Color. Perfect word; thank you. That's
what LLM writing doesn't have, and the
second version didn't have it either.
|
> > > > jimmaswell
This could be shortened to "success does
not belong to the skillful, for time and
chance befalls all" with no meaning lost.
It's self-indulgent fluff. Meanwhile,
Orwell's actually adds more to the
statement - much better signal to noise.
|
> > > > > rmunn
You're running into a cultural
difference. The book of Ecclesiastes
was written in Hebrew, in a poetical
style even though large chunks of it
are prose. But if you read other parts
of the Bible, such as the book of
Psalms (which is entirely poetry,
specifically songs, though in many
cases we do not know the tune that
they were set to), you'll see that
Hebrew poetry relied on repetition.
For example, here's the King James
Version's translation of the famous
"to every thing there is a season"
passage from chapter 3 of
Ecclesiastes, which most translations
render as poetry:> To every thing
there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under the heaven: a time to be
born, and a time to die; a time to
plant, and a time to pluck up that
which is planted; a time to kill, and
a time to heal; a time to break down,
and a time to build up; a time to
weep, and a time to laugh; a time to
mourn, and a time to dance; a time to
cast away stones, and a time to gather
stones together; a time to embrace,
and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to get, and a time to lose; a
time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to rend, and a time to sew; a
time to keep silence, and a time to
speak; a time to love, and a time to
hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace.That could have been said in
less than a quarter of the words the
author expended on it. But something
of the style would have been entirely
lost. He wasn't trying to be succinct,
he was trying to repeat the same
concept over and over until it sinks
in.
|
> > > > > > jimmaswell
Repetition can make a good impact,
but it's beyond excessive in this
instance. Contrast with this poem:
Non est salvatori salvator,
neque defensori dominus,
nec pater nec mater,
nihil supernum.
Translated: No rescuer hath the
rescuer.
No Lord hath the champion,
no mother and no father,
only nothingness above.
- Eliezer YudkowskyI find this one
profound, and it's given me a lot
to think about over the years - in
situations ranging from asking
what our place in the universe is,
to doing the "right thing" (and
deciding what "the right thing"
even means to yourself), or
standing at the helm of some team
or project, knowing that judgement
call is yours alone and there's no
authority or higher power coming
to swoop in and give you the
answer or authoritatively judge
your decision can be
simultaneously liberating and
terrifying. The use of repetition
works incredibly well in my
opinion and it still gives me
chills to read it.
|
> > > > > > rmunn
I never had formal training in
Latin, just what I've picked up.
But grammatically, I would think
the second line would translate to
"No champion hath the lord", not
"no lord hath the champion". Am I
misunderstanding the grammatical
suffixes here?
|
> > > > > > jimmaswell
I'm admittedly no Latin expert, so
I can't give an authoritative
answer, but the translation was
actually arrived at on a forum
where the author asked for help,
and I can see someone asked the
same question:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qp
p6ZdwHLNKj6PXRp/req-latin-...
|
> > > > > tudelo
Writing is fluff. What do you want, a
list of bullet points? There would be
no books. Maybe you have a career in
writing 2 page books?
|
> > > > > > jimmaswell
I like books but I don't find
KJV's writing style engaging at
all. The Hobbit was much better
IMO
|