zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
"Recent large-scale upticks in the use of words like “delve” and “intricate” in certain fields, especially education and academic writing, are attributed to the widespread introduction of LLMs with a chat function, like ChatGPT, that overuses those buzzwords."

OK, but please don't do what pg did a year or so ago and dismiss anyone who wrote "delve" as AI writing. I've been using "delve" in speech for 15+ years. It's just a question where and how one learns their English.

>>milanc+p6
In the "opinion" of ChatGPT, my style of writing is "academic". I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps I draw from a vocabulary or turns of phrase that aren't necessarily characteristic of colloquial speech among native speakers. Technically, English wasn't my first language, so perhaps this is something like the case with RP English in Britain. Only foreigners speak it, so if you speak RP, then you aren't a native Brit.

In any case, it's possible to misuse, abuse, or overuse words like "delve", but to think that the the mere use of "delve" screams "AI-generated"...well, there are some dark tunnels that perhaps such people should delve less into.

>>lo_zam+pg
> In the "opinion" of ChatGPT, my style of writing is "academic".

It may simply be glazing. If you ask it to estimate your IQ (if it complies), it will likely say >130 regardless of what you actually wrote. RLHF taught it that users like being praised.

>>bonobo+Lg
That assumes the characterization is perceived as flattering, or that enough data on me would allow it to "think" it would be to me. Generally, given the anti-intellectual bias in American popular culture, I'm on the fence about that. But then, what are the biases of the corpus ChatGPT was trained on?

For context, I was asking GPT to rewrite some passage in the style of various authors, like Hemingway or Waugh. I didn't even ask it for an assessment of my writing; I was given that for free.

In retrospect (this was while ago), I think the passage may have been expository in character, so perhaps it is not much a mystery why it was characterized as "academic". (When I give it samples similar to mine now, I get "formal, academic, and analytical tone". Compare this to how it characterizes an article from The Register as written in an "informal and conversational tone", in part because of the "colloquial jargon" and "pop culture references"). So my RP comparison is sensible. And there's the question of social class as well. I don't exactly speak like a construction workers, as it were.

>>lo_zam+OF1
Even if, for some reason, you think LLM's are fit for evaluating writing style (I don't), I'd at least ask Gemini Pro and Claude Opus to see if there's consensus among the plausible sounding bullshit generators.