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
My company currently has a guideline that includes “therefore” and similar words as an example of literary language we should avoid using, as it makes the reader think it’s AI.

It really made me uneasy, to think that formal communication might start getting side looks.

>>kace91+vc
Words like that were banned in my English classes for being empty verbiage. It's a good policy even if it seems like a silly purpose. "Therefore" is clumsy and heavy handed in most settings.

>>viccis+gC
I’m curious about this (I’m not a native speaker). What alternative would you use when you want to emphasize a cause-effect relationship, in an engineering context for example?

“Most times A happens before B, but this order it’s not guaranteed. Therefore, there is a possibility of {whatever}.”

Alternatives that come to mind are “as a consequence”, “as a result”, “this means that”, but those are all more verbose, not less.

A simple “so” could work, but it would make the sentence longer, and the cause-effect relationship is less explicit I think.

>>kace91+7h1
I disagree with v_____.

"He didn't send the letter. The lawsuit was dropped."

"He didn't send the letter therefore the lawsuit was dropped."

Two very different examples. "therefore" in the second example communicates a causal effect from the independent clause that isn't present in the first example.

I'm sure one could argue that context clues could imply that same connection and therefore "therefore" is redundant but I just don't agree with the premise.