> What's funny is that humans do this too, but we don't find it irritating; we just call it a speaking style. But when a machine does it, it drives us crazy. Very interesting psychological phenomenon there.

When a human does it, it's identifying. Like the timbre and dynamics of their spoken voice itself, It distinguishes them from the dozen other people you're working with on the project and the thousands of people you encounter through your days. It's signal

But when we have a handful of popular models, and they answer every question everybody has, and get quoted and forwarded everywhere, and are used to reformat and rephrase personal communication... that signal becomes noise.

Rather than voices disinguishing sources in the cacophony of our lives, everything and everyone starts to sound the same, and we lose key information that we're biologically and culturally accustomed to relying on.

Some people are likely unbothered by this in the way that some people are face blind or colorblind, and so don't see the problem. But as we see in discussions like this, many many people do get bothered by it, even if they don't yet have the insight as to put their finger on why.

It drives us crazy because everyone is using the same 2-3 different machines. So rather than each person having their own unique speaking style, the whole world (or, everyone that publishes direct LLM output) is now speaking in the same couple of styles.

And these machines all tend to converge on very similar styles; they have huge amounts of overlap in training data (much of it being already obnoxious internet marketing), they frequently train on each others outputs, and the RLHF process has a tendency to emphasize certain kinds of "cheap win" styles of speech.

Humans are capable of introspection, so, if you develop a verbal tic, you might eventually notice and say to yourself "I've used the word 'load-bearing' (or whatever) a bit too often lately, maybe I should try to cut down on it?". LLMs are not...

We do find it irritating at times. Office jargon, corporate buzzwords, etc. Claude communicates like the worst, most irritating project manager I’ve ever worked with, obscuring the most straightforward conclusion with layers upon layers of stuff so that its point is almost lost. I’ve largely gotten it to avoid that behavior with me, but bits of it sneak through. It couldn’t stop talking about “scaffolding” for a few weeks before I hammered it into submission.

Edit: fixing a dumb meatbrain typo

> What's funny is that humans do this too, but we don't find it irritating

I make fun of people all the time for shoehorning their favorite phrase into every context where it doesn't apply.

Fascinatingly, I'm now so allergic to certain LLM-phrases that I immediately noticed your use of Not X but Y in this comment. Maybe that was intentional, maybe not, but it's a funny illustration of how odd this language rabbit hole has been!

I find it irritating with humans. "last but not the least" always distracts me as I then consider maybe the last item _is_ the least. & what is with everyone saying they want to "double click" into meeting items

If it uses a specific style for each user then this would still be fine. Problem is it does the same style for everyone. We need personality

> but we don't find it irritating

Yes we do! My wife keeps saying "100%" and after I pointed it out she's stopped.

Also I talk to dozens of different people in my life and they all have different overused phrases. Much less tedious when there's variety.

Finally most human don't do it nearly as often as AI, and they're not quite as LinkedIn as AI.

We don't find it more annoying because it's a machine - it's simply more annoying.

it’s not a psychological phenomenon. If a human engineer constantly used pompous language to deliver unvetted information (the number of claude slop root-cause analyses i’ve read where “the smoking gun” is a red herring) we’d rightly consider them a moron

If LLMs were humans I would find that human absolutely insufferable. It is very much about the language.

We don't have to live with this. Increasing the temperature (randomness) would fix it.

...or we call it an overused catch-phrase.