Post

The AI booster argument that "oh well, human writers are also influenced by other writers" is both insanely dumb and insanely insulting; kind of thing that should get you branded for life as a dolt.

LLMs are token-processing engines. *all they do* is take in tokenized input and spit out output. I say "input and output" because it's not even *language,* the *language* can only happen through human interpretation of those inputs and outputs, externally to the model.

That should be a very obvious and evident thing to observe! A human writer is not sourcing the entirety of what goes into their writing from other writing that they've read.

And furthermore, when we talk about writers being "influenced" by the work of other writers, we are describing a process that is in no way analogous to generative model training, and to suggest that it is is just shows that you don't know piss about the subject matter here.

It's like thinking that reading is equivalent to eating the glue off the spines of books. It's not! It's just not.