The premise of Nolan's position is Claude's language tic should not rub off on him, vs it's ok for Tolstoy's to do so.
I disagree. I think words are powerful, and when a word will be understood exactly as it's stated, then the value of the word is present. So while he might bemoan "load-bearing" (so would many of it's readers), that word in the right place will exactly communicate what he'd like. That enough reason to "earn it's keep" in prose.
> I have a degree in linguistics, so I understand the power of immersion.
This seems to be the thrust of the whole post. I just don't think immersion has the same influence on mature people with a stable worldview. Why would you have to fight back? Who is so easily suggestible?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't even give human experts the benefit of the doubt on anything. Humans are wrong all the time, and LLMs even more so. Starting from a place of distrust has always been a part of my learning process. I only have so much time and effort in a day. When I'm tired or bored I naturally just... shamelessly ignore everything and everyone until I choose to re-engage (if ever). This isn't even defensiveness. It's just easier.
> I spent years in big-tech corporate culture, where every phrase is hedged and every expression flattened into a kind of mush designed to be as inoffensive as possible.
This is a good example of what I mean. As stated, this was earlier in the career. You may not have realized it at the time, but ever giving a shit about offending some people means you automatically lost the game. They assume you're just as stupid as everyone else and will shut up and submit to being intimidated. The people getting in the way of work deserve to have their feathers ruffled. Nobody else likes them either. The worst they can do is fire you. So what? If you only ever "shoot to stop", otherwise speak in simple terms and get shit done on behalf of the team and the bigger picture, they never will.
When you're right, you're right. When you're wrong, you start asking more probing questions. If "immersion" is affecting your way of thinking, it's because you're getting lazy and not asking questions.
When I have conversations with uncritical agentic coding maximalists, they will use "load-bearing" in daily speech.
I don't cringe when I know it went through their head, because they didn't literally copy-paste it.
It's just a side-effect of immersion. It's exactly a tic, and I don't frown when people tic.
Economists say "all things equal" (which they're never outside of economic models).
My vanity compels me to not use Claude's linguistic identity. It gets sooo boring.
And in spite of reading hours of Claude every day, I don't sound anything like Claude.
Maybe I'm not as impressionable as Nolan. Maybe I'm less aware of my own words.
I was cultivating a "make an effort when you write" mental space, and this area only got stronger in my brain with Claude.
I suppose it's a fight to preserve my own linguistic identity. Or maybe I have enough monologue to keep the pressure out always.
Also, unrelated, I already had one of Nolan's blog posts open in my most recent tab. It should prove a thing or two about authentic human voice.
One way to detect mathematicians is that we say "[...], in particular, [...]". I guess it's our version of the economist thing!
The premise of Nolan's position is Claude's language tic should not rub off on him, vs it's ok for Tolstoy's to do so.
I disagree. I think words are powerful, and when a word will be understood exactly as it's stated, then the value of the word is present. So while he might bemoan "load-bearing" (so would many of it's readers), that word in the right place will exactly communicate what he'd like. That enough reason to "earn it's keep" in prose.
> I have a degree in linguistics, so I understand the power of immersion.
This seems to be the thrust of the whole post. I just don't think immersion has the same influence on mature people with a stable worldview. Why would you have to fight back? Who is so easily suggestible?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't even give human experts the benefit of the doubt on anything. Humans are wrong all the time, and LLMs even more so. Starting from a place of distrust has always been a part of my learning process. I only have so much time and effort in a day. When I'm tired or bored I naturally just... shamelessly ignore everything and everyone until I choose to re-engage (if ever). This isn't even defensiveness. It's just easier.
> I spent years in big-tech corporate culture, where every phrase is hedged and every expression flattened into a kind of mush designed to be as inoffensive as possible.
This is a good example of what I mean. As stated, this was earlier in the career. You may not have realized it at the time, but ever giving a shit about offending some people means you automatically lost the game. They assume you're just as stupid as everyone else and will shut up and submit to being intimidated. The people getting in the way of work deserve to have their feathers ruffled. Nobody else likes them either. The worst they can do is fire you. So what? If you only ever "shoot to stop", otherwise speak in simple terms and get shit done on behalf of the team and the bigger picture, they never will.
When you're right, you're right. When you're wrong, you start asking more probing questions. If "immersion" is affecting your way of thinking, it's because you're getting lazy and not asking questions.