Hopefully the Tilderen aren't completely sick of the topic of AI writing.

To summarize my take: I think LLM agents are profoundly useful. And problematic. And I really really dislike AI writing when I encounter it outside of documentation. It's not only that it usually has a poor signal to noise ratio and a lot of annoying tropes, it also breaks a contract that has existed since writing was invented. And I dislike that it displaces human writing. Human writing is beautiful, we need more of it, not less.

By breaking a contract I mean that human writing implies an investment. The author invested time in creating it and has (sometimes) invested their reputation by publishing it. Whereas LLM prose requires minimal effort and thought. One great summary is:

"If you didn't take the time to write it, why should I take the time to read it?"

But it's not just about time or preference. We rely on signals of investment and competence to judge the value of information both personally and professionally. LLMs short circuit that completely. They incorporate signals of effort despite there being no effort involved. Signals that we could once rely on that someone has a deep understanding of a subject, or did extensive research, or is reasonably intelligent, or interesting, don't have any meaning when it's LLM prose.

Recently, while investigating Fable failure modes (while working in Claude Code), it outputted a summary that I think captures the situation really well: "My polish costs nothing".

Which is to say that LLM prose folds in signals of authority, competence, rigor and insight without any of those things needing to be present in the content. A fluent human is often worth listening to while a fluent LLM is just the default, the fluency carries no information. I think that's part of the reason for AI psychosis, I think it effectively uses, now outdated, expectations to hijack perception.

The reason that I sometimes take the time to investigate why an agent went wrong is partly to refine the scaffolding and partly to remind myself how dumb they are. Each generation is a little bit better, confidently right a little more than it's confidently wrong, so I make a point not to let myself fall into the trap of trusting their output too much.

I suppose I'm just posting to pass on the reminder.

I journal sporadically, and have sometimes wanted to record a thought as a poem. I like idea of using constraints to further my grasp on the thought I'm trying to express, and it'd leave me with something I'd feel proud to come back to.

But I don't really know where to start? I'm hoping to find a form of poetry can be short enough to not feel daunting to start, but still forces enough structure to make the exercise worthwhile.

I imagine this effort means I'll also need to read more poetry and find stuff I like. My only real experience with the medium is from school, and thinking back to that time only reminds me of how confused I was while guessing if a foot was stressed or unstressed. I do remember liking Arthur Rimbaud's Le dormeur du val though. If anyone has any recommendations for poems they like, I'd take those too

I am looking for a Buy-It-For-Life pen. I've had the Parker Jotters for years and love them, but I am in need of something with a little longer life expectancy on the barrel.

My first thought was James Brand The Burwell, however I am just now really diving into the BIFL Pen world and curious on what you guys suggestion / use.

Assume the money cap of $100 for now, unless you have some out of this world amazing option over that cap.

I love writing, it's one of the most human things about humanity. It's communication, art and sharing all at once. It's been fundamental to culture and progress for 1000's of years.

LLMs are, in a way, really good at writing. They have the larger part of human creative output distilled into their weights. So it was inevitable that more and more people would start publishing articles and blog posts written (all or in part) by AI agents.

I don't like it but I accept it, there really isn't anything I can do about it. What I was hoping, though, is that high signal to noise ratio places on the internet (Tildes among them) would reject it and we could go on consuming 100% organic prose, at least for a while.

And for while that's exactly what happened. In techy places like Hacker News, AI posts were quickly flagged and downvoted into oblivion. At Tildes they mostly didn't show up at all, or if they did I missed them.

That seems to be ending though. Now I see agent written pieces on the front page of HN with 100's of comments. There's always a highly upvoted comment pointing out that the piece is slop, but you have to scroll to find it.

The reason I use HN as an example is that it's full of people with extensive experience using AI agents who are in a position to tell if something is slop. And it looks like the larger part of readers (or at least commenters) can't tell the difference anymore. If that's true at HN, it's going to be true everywhere.

It is getting harder to tell when something is slop, people are post editing, handwriting intros and getting better at prompting to remove obvious LLM tells. But if you have any practical experience with these tools, it's still pretty easy to tell. Somewhere during post training certain patterns end up getting heavily favored. Interestingly, many of them happen across all of the frontier models. Em-dashes are the most famous but there are so many more. Most are rhetorical tricks or formatting patterns rather than punctuation.

Reading LLM prose, many of the tropes don't stand out at first, instead they land as strong writing. But after you see them repeat enough times they start to become obvious. Even putting the tropes aside, the hallmark of a lot of LLM writing is that it's more rhetoric than substance. Low signal, lots of noise.

I don't have a solution, it's starting to look like many (maybe most) people aren't going to be able to tell when they're consuming something that required minimal thought by the "author" who prompted the AI. Which is sad because, up until now, we could assume that, when we read something, someone cared enough to put time and mental bandwidth into creating it. That's become increasingly less true.

I suppose this post is me feeling wistful for the internet we used to have, written exclusively by humans. I continue to hope that people will reject slop at places like Tildes, but in order for them to do that they have to be able to identify it. Maybe people will get better at that, there is definitely a point where you've consumed enough slop that you can smell it from a mile away. But of course the slop is going to keep getting harder to detect.

I don't want to go as far as to say that slop will take over the internet, I think (hope) that people will keep wanting to read organic, human, writing. And that as a result we'll come up with strategies and solutions to support that.

It's a weird time. Right now every LLM blog post and article that goes viral is signalling to the prompter, and anyone watching who can tell what's happening, that there is demand for slop. And of course with demand comes profit. I think we're at the beginning of a steep curve.

I used to really value the art of essay writing. There seemed to be such a richness in the different ways people would construct arguments, structure those arguments, then deliver those arguments stylistically, not just from the perspective of being persuaded as a reader but also from the perspective of seeing how a given writer thinks, relates to the living tradition of language, and understands the world conceptually. But it's basically lost most of its meaning to me in this age of LLMs. The reality is, LLMs are capable of writing texts that, if you gave them to a seasoned reader 5 years ago, they'd say it was well written and indicative of a truly thoughtful mind. Even if there currently exist certain tells with LLMs, those styles certainly existed in different ways in real human writing beforehand. Now, those perfectly reasonable set of styles are verboten and we have to dedicate half our deep focus to figuring out whether, or to what extent, an essay or article was written by AI. It's difficult to enjoy, let alone care, about essay writing and the writers behind them now.

I can still find value in books, though, because they were written in the past and I don't mind never reading any non-scientific book published after 2022 if it comes down to it.

You know the trope: an epic fantasy world with magic materials that have strange properties or give people superpowers or what have you. It seems half of the time, this material is a type of crystal with some kind of electric power, and the other half of the time it's a type of metal that's basically steel, but stronger or something. The main examples that come to mind are Marvel, where you have the Soul Stones, Adamantium, and Vibranium.

Are there any other cool types of materials to use for this type of resource? Like maybe an obscure type of material that certain scientists study, but the general public doesn't know much about?

I’m in the process of helping someone come up with lore and I was wondering if there was a website to help with suffixes related to lore and mythology. Things like adding ist, kin, age, folk, etc to try and make new words for beings or creatures.

Looking at movies and books like a sleuth, looking for correlations, is not my thing. That is a very cerebral way to look at stories. I prefer letting them take over me with all they got, symbolism included but mixed with everything else. When it comes to fiction and magic, I wanna watch the trick, not figure it out. Much like magic tricks, I firmly believe that, when dissected, fiction tends to die.

By that I mean that it becomes less appealing.

I'm a little annoyed by the view that, if you don't look for "hidden meanings", your engagement with art is of a lesser quality. As if there was only one acceptable and elevated way to read things.

Much to my delight, people have built interesting symbolism from my writing that I never intended to create. I don't write symbolism, but I tend to use elements that are universal, well-known, and easy to interpret as symbols.

I'm not sure why I wrote this. I just wanted to organize my thoughts about this subject in a place where people are nice.

I guess that is it.

What do you think of symbolism?

The other day I realised I should have used a disclaimer on a comment.

It is a comment that is supposed to be light hearted and fun so I started to amuse myself in a way that I haven't done in quite some time.

I've "always" enjoyed breaking down words (preferably in the "wrong" place), finding synonyms or sound-a-likes or second meanings and their synonyms or sound-a-likes or second meanings, etc, etc...

So I would like to invite you to build on my example below, bring your own examples or tell us about ways that you play with words.

Example:

I was reading this post about the Tildes hierarchical tag system and it got me thinking about possible tags with double meanings.

For example, the gooning tag could be interpreted in a sexual way, or interpreted as the act of being a goon/villain. To clear up the misunderstanding, you could make a gooning.baddies tag, but that also has a double meaning.

What are some tags that could be used for serious topics that can have a less serious interpretation?