Word converts any - into an em dash based on context. Guess who’s always accused of being a bot?
The thing is, AI learned to use these things because it is good typographical style represented in its training set.
I don't buy the pro-clanker pro-em dash movement that has come out of nowhere in the past several years.
(I learned to use dashes like this from Philip Dick's writings, of all places, and it stuck. Bet nobody ever thought of looking for writing style in PKD!).
Hope AI didn't ruin this for me!
Bots that are trying to convince you they’re human..
Anyone who makes errors like this should not be talking.
Sentences "need" very little, but without style and personality, writing becomes very boring. I suppose simplicity without any affectation works for raw communication of plain technical facts, but there's more to writing than that.
I would personally avoid writing that "poorly composed sentences" have an "affect"—rather than the writer having or presenting an affect, or the sentences' tone being affected—as I find an implied anthropomorphizing of "sentences" in that usage, which anthropomorphizing isn't serving enough useful purpose, to my eye, that I'd want it in my writing, but I'm not sure I'd call that an error either.
What did you mean?
> Commas and parentheses can do it all, and an excess of either is a sign of poorly edited prose.
This attitude, however, is a disease of modern English literacy.
a) prose doesn't have intentions ... it should be "prose intended to"
b) "effect of", not "affect of"
> I don't see what I'd call an actual error.
That's a serious problem. It's downright weird that you thought he was actually talking about affect (the noun).
This is an old conversation ... I won't revisit it.
But it’s possible I was reading too generously and this was a botched attempt to employ “effect”, which would also fit (and better, I think).
Oh no, oh lord lmao
I meant "affect" and not "effect." You need to learn what affect means. I'm not asking you to learn about affect theory, but ffs no part of my sentence implied it meant "effect" and not "affect." Ugh. It doesn't even make sense. What would the "effect" of "poorly composed sentences" be? Only affect makes sense there.
noun
Psychology., feeling or emotion.
Psychiatry., an expressed or observed emotional response.
Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.
Obsolete., affection; passion; sensation; inclination; inward disposition or feeling.
> prose intending to imitate the affect of poorly composed sentences
becomes
> prose intending to imitate the feeling or emotion of poorly composed sentences
My point was that the author is trying to convey a specific feeling by way of poorly composed sentences. Perhaps they want a colloquial feel or a ranting feel or a rambling one. An obvious example would be the massive run-on sentence in Ulysses.