No offence taken. Nah it’s not an LLM. It’s just my writing style (and occasionally speaking style when discussing more formal topics). I do that in other languages too. That being said, the other languages that I speak have a formal sounding tone with written text by default. I started learning English when I was very young and I’ve been speaking/reading/writing from an early age. LLM output may have a similar tone (the formalism), but they don’t output the same context/arguments without extensive prompting (which would require more work than just writing out the reply by hand). And you are correct that you would need elaborate prompting to simulate minor grammar errors and typos. :)
For me, centre-right = Democrat, far right = Republican. It’s not a translation issue, I am well aware that my language style doesn’t align with commonly used terminology. That’s the basic distribution of the US political spectrum in a global sense. The word “liberal” is used incorrectly by Americans. Even the term “conservative” in the American context is more borderline. From my experience conservatives globally tend to have a subtle, but different outlook than what is marketed as conservatism in the US.
Honestly, my reply was badly thought out in retrospective. The reply was indeed boilerplate what I would say to any American (I make the same arguments to my American friends albeit I modify how explicit I am depending on who I am talking to) and the emphasis was by design. I was trying to emphasize that there is benefit to “novel approaches” 😆 and that standard methods and even analysis (in the US context) can work, until the day comes when it doesn’t work.
I will happily concede the discussion about US exceptionalism if there is reason for it. An example would be changing the situation on the ground via mass scale, bottom up protest (the Democratic party is too corrupt, too cowardly and have no new ideas) with the government losing control over parts of the country (e.g. institutions like local courts and admin, key transport infrastructure like airports) and showing the rest of the country that the scale of the protests (e.g. 60 million strong daily protests, with weekend peaks approaching 100 million), their determination (no compromises, immediate resignation of the current administration and all senior enablers) and most importantly gumption (letting both senior business leaders and security forced understand that they risk going down with ship and the captain and his team will be the first to bail if things get hot).
Me ignoring the “my country is dying I hate this” was a lack of compassion on my part. My bad. The doomer last paragraph in my OP was also uncalled for. I am trying (and failing in this case) to point out that now is not the time to think of exceptionalism, the time is to make it happen.
No offence taken. Nah it’s not an LLM. It’s just my writing style (and occasionally speaking style when discussing more formal topics). I do that in other languages too. That being said, the other languages that I speak have a formal sounding tone with written text by default. I started learning English when I was very young and I’ve been speaking/reading/writing from an early age. LLM output may have a similar tone (the formalism), but they don’t output the same context/arguments without extensive prompting (which would require more work than just writing out the reply by hand). And you are correct that you would need elaborate prompting to simulate minor grammar errors and typos. :)
For me, centre-right = Democrat, far right = Republican. It’s not a translation issue, I am well aware that my language style doesn’t align with commonly used terminology. That’s the basic distribution of the US political spectrum in a global sense. The word “liberal” is used incorrectly by Americans. Even the term “conservative” in the American context is more borderline. From my experience conservatives globally tend to have a subtle, but different outlook than what is marketed as conservatism in the US.
Honestly, my reply was badly thought out in retrospective. The reply was indeed boilerplate what I would say to any American (I make the same arguments to my American friends albeit I modify how explicit I am depending on who I am talking to) and the emphasis was by design. I was trying to emphasize that there is benefit to “novel approaches” 😆 and that standard methods and even analysis (in the US context) can work, until the day comes when it doesn’t work.
I will happily concede the discussion about US exceptionalism if there is reason for it. An example would be changing the situation on the ground via mass scale, bottom up protest (the Democratic party is too corrupt, too cowardly and have no new ideas) with the government losing control over parts of the country (e.g. institutions like local courts and admin, key transport infrastructure like airports) and showing the rest of the country that the scale of the protests (e.g. 60 million strong daily protests, with weekend peaks approaching 100 million), their determination (no compromises, immediate resignation of the current administration and all senior enablers) and most importantly gumption (letting both senior business leaders and security forced understand that they risk going down with ship and the captain and his team will be the first to bail if things get hot).
Me ignoring the “my country is dying I hate this” was a lack of compassion on my part. My bad. The doomer last paragraph in my OP was also uncalled for. I am trying (and failing in this case) to point out that now is not the time to think of exceptionalism, the time is to make it happen.