[antasvara]

I don't have a "problem" with AI being used in this fashion. That being said, this article (and others on the blog) sound quite generic. They're characterized by the staccato, "I wanted this. Then this. Also this" sentence structure and headings like "The Problem" and "What it Does" etc.

The thing about an editor is that if you're not careful, your voice is lost. That's fine if the publication you're writing for has a distinctive voice or you have a specific style in mind; this article [1] describes the "New Yorker" voice as an example:

>The New Yorker sort of voice—or rather, the New Yorker voice I was using—is one that sounds on top, or ahead, of the material under discussion. It is a voice of intelligent curiosity; it implies that the writer has synthesized a great deal of information; it confidently takes readers by the hand, introduces them to surprising characters, recounts dramatic scenes, and leads them through key ideas and issues. The voice narrates the material in the first-person and describes the researcher conducting the research, encountering people, reacting to situations, thinking thoughts. The voice is smart-sounding. It is an effective voice for a lot of long-form journalism...

The "default" LLM voice isn't one that I find particularly appealing. For lack of a better term, it has these "zingers" every third or fourth sentence that, if you were writing a spammy piece, would be bolded/italicized. It also reads like the LLM has no faith in the reader's intelligence, or that it's trying too hard to make you feel smart.

This article has that feel to it. I'm not saying it was written by an LLM; I trust that the author isn't lying about only using it for editing. But it has that same style and voice that spammy LinkedIn/Facebook posts have.

[1]: https://www.publicbooks.org/ditching-the-new-yorker-voice/