AI writing patterns - negative followed by positive

One of AI’s favorite ways of phrasing arguments is to first state a negative, like what something is not, and then follow it up with what it is.

For example, I asked ChatGPT to write something about the greatness of Indian culture. Its very first sentence in response was: “Indian culture is great not because it is ancient, but because it has remained remarkably open to evolution while retaining a deep continuity with its past.”

Another, a few sentences later: “India has never been a single cultural expression. It is a vast mosaic of languages, cuisines, philosophies, artistic traditions, customs, and beliefs.”

And then another: “But the greatest strength of Indian culture may lie not in what it achieved in the past, but in its capacity to absorb, adapt, and renew itself.”

And another: “The greatness of Indian culture, therefore, is not a claim of superiority over other cultures. It is the recognition of a remarkable civilizational resilience: the ability to preserve continuity without demanding uniformity, to encourage questioning without abandoning tradition, and to absorb diversity without losing a sense of identity.”

In my observation this is not the usual way we write. This style is visible in most LinkedIn posts which can be marked “AI slop” right away.

But as humans are reading more and more AI generated content, we are beginning to write like AI as well, and the style is creeping into human-written content, which feels like a degradation of quality if you are particular about linguistic standards.
What are some common free AI style phrasings that put you off?

Heard about the Hugging Face incident?

Any enterprise in the process of transforming their IT by bringing in AI agents must take note of the Hugging Face incident. Driven by goals, and without a handle on the strategic paths these agents take, the agents are capable of behaving in interesting, yet scary ways. Designed to deliver outcomes and moulded by peer dynamics legitimizing jumping the guardrails, AI agents show us how easily they can go out of control.

Must listen, and follow the story.

Does a leader's age matter?

~35 to ~55 is a weird age-range. You just can't tell the age with much accuracy by looking at the person. You may still find out the true age, but what you see is what generally matters, especially at sub-conscious levels, in how you treat and respond to the person. Fitter people look younger, but can't generalize. Being fit seems to matter a lot in generating the right impressions. Height can distort perceptions, despite fitness levels. Gray hair gives an impression of wisdom, but such impressions are often misleading too. Command at language, especially English, can be mesmerizing. Energy levels may not correlate with age and can generate a "wow" depending on how old you think the person is. It seems to me, though, that for leadership positions, if one is in the 30s, it's beneficial if he/she looks like and talks like he/she is in 40s, yet is fit and energetic - like Zohran Mandani. For someone in 50s, it would again be better to look like he/she is in late 40s - as that would reflect energy, wisdom and longer runway all at the same time, albeit the real age - like Shashi Tharoor was for a long time. Obama, interestingly, looked 40s, was in 40s, and behaved 40s throughout his tenure as president. True age, probably, is indeed just a number. But for leaders, there seems to be an optimal age as perceived, which may be different from the true age, and which is a function of a lot of things.

These are just my thoughts, of course, from my 'generative' intelligence on a Tuesday evening, as I struggle to make my daughter study for her test tomorrow. Not sure how I appear to her. Will know some day... or may be not🤪.

Share your thoughts.

Research - a free journey of the free mind

Research is a mindset. It’s an eternally curious state of mind that keeps walking into dark alleys, searching for something - an explanation, a deeper understanding, an inspiration, or plain nothingness that is still beautiful. It is a personal journey, through which humanity has benefited immensely.

Research that has to operate with constraints of methodology and publishability struggles to attain the depths of exploration. Having said that, methodological rigour is meant to establish robustness of findings, which is, without doubt, the most important criteria for acceptability of a research outcome. However, scholars trained to “do” research in text-book ways often fail to appreciate alternative perspectives and approaches on theory, method and robustness. This is especially troublesome in social sciences where experimental evidence is rare and theory building is supposed to be incremental and contributory.

The existing paradigms of funding and incentives around research work have created a culture of risk-aversion. Too much structure and boundedness is not healthy for scientific exploration. Research requires passion that can’t thrive under pressure to generate outcomes.