[brooksbp]

Sometimes I read text like this and really enjoy the deep insights and arguments once I filter out the emotion, attitude, or tone. And I wonder if the core of what they're trying to communicate would be better or more efficiently received if the text was more neutral or positive. E.g. you can be 'bearish' on something and point out 'limitations', or you can say 'this is where I think we are' and 'this is how I think we can improve', but your insights and arguments about the thing can more or less be the same in either form of delivery.

[neuronexmachina]

> Sometimes I read text like this and really enjoy the deep insights and arguments once I filter out the emotion, attitude, or tone.

Curiously enough, I imagine that sort of filtering/translation is the sort of thing a Large Language Model would be pretty good at.

[chaps]

It is. At least in the inverse from what I've tried -- adding emotion into an unemotional thing. It can take very benign topics and turn them into absolute ragefests, or some apparent deep wonder of life, or simple sadness. And through all of that you can have it convey those same emotions on the topic as a bear that can only type in caps, and will wholly frame any rationalization as a primal desire to eat apples.

[stevenhuang]

What emotional tone did you arrive to? If "bearish" is your take away I think you should read it more carefully.

[dekhn]

I'd rewrite sections like this to be a bit less "insulting the intelligence of the question-asker".

The models do not understand language like humans do.

Duh? they are not humans? Of course they differ in some of their mechanisms. They still can tell us a lot about language structure. And for what they don't tell us, we can look elsewhere.

[eli_gottlieb]

Sometimes I read scientific and technical texts that are candy-coated to appeal to people who can't stand criticism, and wish the author was allowed to say what they really think.

[pessimizer]

The tone of this article is completely anodyne. I think sometimes people confuse their own discomfort or disagreement with something with its "tone." I think that sometimes this the result of a boundary issue (people sourcing their inner states from things outside themselves e.g. my wife is making me angry vs. I have become angry as a reaction to something my wife has done.) But other times I think it's a subconscious act of bad faith argument, because there's no way to defend yourself from a nonspecific accusation of a "tone."

Instead of an argument about "tone," it's always going to be better to be specific about your objection. In my experience, nine times out of ten when asked to be specific, the "tone" problem turns out to be that the author said something "is wrong," and the reviewer is pretending that a horrible mistake has been made by not instead saying "I think it could be wrong," or "this is how I think that this thing might be improved."

Nobody should be required to prefix the things they are saying they believe with the fact that those things are their opinions. Who else's opinions would they be? Also, nobody should be required to describe what they think in a way that compliments and builds on things that they think are wrong. It's up to those people to make their arguments themselves. There is no obligation to try to fix things that you actually just want to replace.

Contrary to what you say here, I don't think those behaviors make anyone more receptive to one's arguments, because those objections are actually vacuous rhetorical distractions from actual disagreements (whether something is true or false) that can be argued on their merits if there are merits to argue. In fact, I think those behaviors indicate an eagerness to reduce conflict that will only be taken advantage of by someone objecting to "tone" in bad faith. If you've said "I think that this method would improve the process," there's really no reason that a "tone"-arguer can't be upset that you said that it "would" improve the process instead of "could" improve the process. In fact, it's an act of presumptuous elitism that you think you could improve the process, and it disrespects the many very well-regarded researchers involved to state as a fact that you could see something that they haven't.

Sorry for the rant, but I think that arguments about "tone" or whether something is "just your opinion, man" are far worse internet pollution than advertising, and I get triggered.

[brooksbp]

Wow. That was hilarious to read.

[azinman2]

But then it would feel less personal and be more boring. Writing should convey emotion - it’s what we have as humans to offer in linking with others, and great writing should in turn make you feel something.

[blackbear_]

Disagree: great (non-fiction) writing should provide information in an efficient and structured way, so that readers can quickly understand the key points and if reading further is worth their time.

[teekert]

Maybe you can ask chatGPT for a summary in a less emotional tone ;)

[omeze]

I tried but the original article is too long :/

[mannykannot]

When reading as well-constructed an article as this one, I tend to assume its tone pretty accurately reflects the author's position.