I've noticed a trend with most new models with regards to their writing style. They are creating a new style, and this seems common among them. It's very information-dense. Here is an example from GLM 5.3 Flash. I'm gonna be honest here and say that my prompt was kinda silly; my prompt was 'Why wouldn't you just name your Chinese restaurant 'Chinese Food' instead of 'Ming Dynasty' or 'Szechuan Garden' or whatever?' the idea being that someone searching for 'Chinese food' on Google Maps would put you first if you called your restaurant that. But forget all that; here's an excerpt from GLM's output: The search reality check, which is where the idea breaks. Your mental model is exactly right about the query: people do open Maps and type "food," usually hungry and undecided. But the ranking doesn't reward the name at that abstraction level. In the local ranking surveys, category match outranks name keywords; and here's the catch: every restaurant on the map already matches "food" through its category field. Relevance saturates. The edge that made "Chinese Restaurant" powerful was discrimination: the name narrowed the category, so "chinese food near me" out-matched "Golden Dragon." "FOOD" points at the root of the category tree, where every competitor matches equally well, so the ranking defaults entirely to proximity and review count, which the name cannot buy. Worse, it fails the narrow-query test: someone typing "tacos" or "dim sum" gets a name that is maximally broad and minimally informative. The strategy's entire currency is literal scarcity, and "food" is the least scarce literalism in the language. There's even a Baudrillardian flourish at the failure point: Google's own Maps category chip is literally labeled "Food." Your sign would render you indistinguishable from an interface element; the searcher couldn't tell your territory from the map's own label. It's not 'caveman style', but it is using less words to say more, and they're using more esoteric phrasing to be more 'compact'. And I think it's a bit at the cost of being clearly readable to the average person at first glance. 'There's even a Baudrillardian flourish at the failure point' is an example from that screenshot that leapt out at me. I'm familiar with Baudrillard so I knew what it was getting at, but a lot of people are going to sigh and ask 'What the **** does Baudrillarian mean?' I'm not saying that 'no human would write like this', because some do (William Gibson for example), but I find it rare/unusual (in human writing), yet trending hard with all the latest models I interact with, like they're all zeroing in on this style. Maybe a result of targeting token efficiency? It's a terseness, combined with using a sort of 'wide' or 'rich' vocabulary to convey information instead of using more words. At least that's the impression that I get from reading lines like 'Baudrillardian flourish at the failure point''. There's a lot to unpack from those six words, and it feels like the model chose the most terse, efficient way to convey an idea with that word choice (which requires the reader to unpack it). I compared it to William Gibson: a lot of people struggle with his writing style, and it's similar to that. Example: 'Summer in the Sprawl, the mall-crowds swaying like wind-blown grass; a field of flesh shot through with sudden eddies of need and gratification'. His writing is often like that; it feels highly compressed, using as few words possible to convey an idea by careful word choice. It's interesting, that lately, I feel like LLMs are gravitating toward Gibson-speak.   submitted by   /u/AnticitizenPrime [link]   [comments]