Newer LLMs exhibit a more homogenized writing style than earlier versions like GPT-3. This is due to "style burn-in," where training on outputs from previous generations reinforces a specific, often less creative, tone. The model’s style becomes path-dependent, losing the raw variety of its original training data.
Related Insights
During a live test, multiple competing AI tools demonstrated the exact same failure mode. This indicates the flaw lies not with the individual tools but with the shared underlying language model (e.g., Claude Sonnet), a systemic weakness users might misattribute to a specific product.
With models like Gemini 3, the key skill is shifting from crafting hyper-specific, constrained prompts to making ambitious, multi-faceted requests. Users trained on older models tend to pare down their asks, but the latest AIs are 'pent up with creative capability' and yield better results from bigger challenges.
MIT research reveals that large language models develop "spurious correlations" by associating sentence patterns with topics. This cognitive shortcut causes them to give domain-appropriate answers to nonsensical queries if the grammatical structure is familiar, bypassing logical analysis of the actual words.
The current limitation of LLMs is their stateless nature; they reset with each new chat. The next major advancement will be models that can learn from interactions and accumulate skills over time, evolving from a static tool into a continuously improving digital colleague.
Richard Sutton, author of "The Bitter Lesson," argues that today's LLMs are not truly "bitter lesson-pilled." Their reliance on finite, human-generated data introduces inherent biases and limitations, contrasting with systems that learn from scratch purely through computational scaling and environmental interaction.
Instead of giving an AI creative freedom, defining tight boundaries like word count, writing style, and even forbidden words forces the model to generate more specific, unique, and less generic content. A well-defined box produces a more creative result than an empty field.
Unlike traditional APIs, LLMs are hard to abstract away. Users develop a preference for a specific model's 'personality' and performance (e.g., GPT-4 vs. 3.5), making it difficult for applications to swap out the underlying model without user notice and pushback.
Earlier AI models would praise any writing given to them. A breakthrough occurred when the Spiral team found Claude 4 Opus could reliably judge writing quality, even its own. This capability enables building AI products with built-in feedback loops for self-improvement and developing taste.
AI-generated text often falls back on clichés and recognizable patterns. To combat this, create a master prompt that includes a list of banned words (e.g., "innovative," "excited to") and common LLM phrases. This forces the model to generate more specific, higher-impact, and human-like copy.
When an LLM produces text with the wrong style, re-prompting is often ineffective. A superior technique is to use a tool that allows you to directly edit the model's output. This act of editing creates a perfect, in-context example for the next turn, teaching the LLM your preferred style much more effectively than descriptive instructions.
