Commenting here on HN resulted in something I didn't expect - I've been told I'm a good writer. I had suspected I was above average in my ability to conduct my thoughts through the constraint of the written word into the mind of another person, but it's interesting to have some feedback even if from pseudonymous Internet strangers.
I write oddly. I coin words. I wrote the word "penalizement" the other day. It's not a real word. It's a faulty formation, a confusion of punish and penalize with the -ment suffix. But still, it's a logical formation, and I think it made sense in a sentence: "subject to penalizements". So I used it anyway. Why the hell not? I also have a linguistics background, and so my lexicon is full of terms like "disprefer" which have obvious meaning and are valid words but they are red squiggles in Firefox's spell checker; most people don't use words like that.
My writing is improbable. Statistically it's improbable. Good writing is slightly improbable. It follows that it would be hard to emulate my writing statistically.
> Even in a cathedral, each piece of the architecture serves a role, just as each brick does in a modest building. By comparison, AI writing adds words that offer no value.
I actually think that excessive use of filler words without any specific function is one of the biggest flaws in my style of writing. When I edit myself it's the first thing I attack. Oh, I've done it again: "I consider the greatest flaw in my own style to be superfluous filler words."
retrac•27m ago
I write oddly. I coin words. I wrote the word "penalizement" the other day. It's not a real word. It's a faulty formation, a confusion of punish and penalize with the -ment suffix. But still, it's a logical formation, and I think it made sense in a sentence: "subject to penalizements". So I used it anyway. Why the hell not? I also have a linguistics background, and so my lexicon is full of terms like "disprefer" which have obvious meaning and are valid words but they are red squiggles in Firefox's spell checker; most people don't use words like that.
My writing is improbable. Statistically it's improbable. Good writing is slightly improbable. It follows that it would be hard to emulate my writing statistically.
> Even in a cathedral, each piece of the architecture serves a role, just as each brick does in a modest building. By comparison, AI writing adds words that offer no value.
I actually think that excessive use of filler words without any specific function is one of the biggest flaws in my style of writing. When I edit myself it's the first thing I attack. Oh, I've done it again: "I consider the greatest flaw in my own style to be superfluous filler words."