LLM Voice

Sometimes when I read a post, I get the growing feeling that I'm reading the output of an LLM. I can't necessarily define why, although there are the common tells (it's not the em-dashes, it's the load-bearing tapestries). As I do this my desire to read on atrophies, sometimes to the point of revulsion

There are tools out there that cliam to be able to tell the difference between LLM-written prose and the old-fashioned biological product. I'm wary of them, partly due skeptism about their accuracy, but also because it rather misses the point. The reaction to LLM-Voice is a human one, that sense that we are in an uncanny valley of prose. By the time I'd reach for a tool to tell me what I'm reading, it's already too late, even if it confidently tells me there's no LLM present.

I'm also suspicious of my own ability to accurately recognize LLM voice. Language changes over time, so a common sign of age is complaining about the language of the youngs. I'm inclined to bristle at prose that talks about “adopting a new sales motion,” or “a sharp round-up of news”. But I've heard these constructs coming out of human mouths, so that's more a generational difference rather than between carbon and silicon. (And as a transplanted Brit, don't get me started on Americanisms, I'm sure I'll get used to them momentarily.)

Right now I urge authors to be extra-wary of LLM-Voice. In particular I strongly recommend that authors should not fall into the trap of getting the LLM to write a draft. Even if it's edited by a human, it's very hard to expel the LLM-Voice - thus causing the uncanny valley reaction. 1 Even accepting suggestions of rephrasing is dangerous. I have heard of people using LLMs to develop outline and structure, that may be ok, but only as far as an outline. 2 Authors should fill the prose themselves.

Say Your Writing is even more important in the age of LLMs. I habitually speak the words in my head and then write them down (and then edit what I've just written). This advice is particularly important to anyone who has any desire to communicate regularly with writing. Like many things, learning to be a good writer relies on lots of practice. It's a skill worth the time to acquire, but surrendering to an LLM will undermine any progress.

In time it may be that LLMs will be so good that we can't tell the difference. In many ways, that's more worrying. Like most writers, I find writing an almost-essential tool for thinking. Often it's only by writing something down, that I can really get my thoughts on a topic into coherence. I've often started an essay knowing I don't really understand something, but the act of wrestling with the words forces me to overcome my confusions. As more people delegate writing to LLMs they will also delegate thinking and comprehension to LLMs. I don't want to do that, where's the fun of writing then?

Although avoiding LLM-Voice is a general rule, it isn't an absolute one. An important example is that of Jim Highsmith (who contributes to this site). He finds working with an LLM is essential to his writing to overcome the bane of Parkinson's disease. I'll gladly deal with LLM-Voice in order to continue imbibing my old friend's wisdom.

A more awkward case is that of translation. Many of my colleagues aren't comfortable in English, it is their second or fourth language. Some have found LLM translation an important part to their communication with those of us who know rather less Marathi. But I also would prefer rather a genuine human's clunky prose to the smooth but soulless LLM.

There are situations where it would be reasonable for even a native Englishman to let LLMs write the prose. Such as if I'm writing a form letter to an official, or preparing a report I suspect no-one will ever read 3. Maybe most documentation in the future will only be read by LLMs, and they won't have my uncanny valley worries. But if I want to communicate with humans, my humanity has to shine (or at least ooze) out of my prose.