Just as the community adopted the term “hallucination” to describe additive errors, we must now codify its far more insidious counterpart: semantic ablation.
Semantic ablation is the algorithmic erosion of high-entropy information. Technically, it is not a “bug” but a structural byproduct of greedy decoding and RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback).
During “refinement,” the model gravitates toward the center of the Gaussian distribution, discarding “tail” data – the rare, precise, and complex tokens – to maximize statistical probability. Developers have exacerbated this through aggressive “safety” and “helpfulness” tuning, which deliberately penalizes unconventional linguistic friction. It is a silent, unauthorized amputation of intent, where the pursuit of low-perplexity output results in the total destruction of unique signal.
When an author uses AI for “polishing” a draft, they are not seeing improvement; they are witnessing semantic ablation. The AI identifies high-entropy clusters – the precise points where unique insights and “blood” reside – and systematically replaces them with the most probable, generic token sequences. What began as a jagged, precise Romanesque structure of stone is eroded into a polished, Baroque plastic shell: it looks “clean” to the casual eye, but its structural integrity – its “ciccia” – has been ablated to favor a hollow, frictionless aesthetic.


A stack of single-sentence paragraphs, you say?
With a perfect conclusion written at the end you say?
Methinks I’ve seen this before somewhere, I say.
Dare to be different, I say.
Ha, If you’re alluding to my post being similar to generated output, you obviously haven’t experienced the pure blandness of LLMs trying to write engaging content.
I wondered if what I said would come across as criticism - even though I took care to avoid alluding to your comment NOT being statistically bland (which ironically, due to your third point, would have begun to imply that it WAS, despite my saying explicitly the opposite).
So we are proving real-time why LLMs go to such lengths to be bland - their goal of
not offending anyonemaking their shareholders more money does not allow them to take those kinds of risks, as I just did above.All the more so with their child-like yet incurious audience noping out at the first hint of difficulty
understandingproducing dopamine upon reading anything at all - not attempting clarification or expounding additional details as just you did.So kudos I suppose we just proved our humanity? Now to do that 10k times a day for the rest of our natural lives…