Writes Will Oremus, in "The Most Famous AI Writing Tic Is Also the Most Mysterious/Why chatbots love 'it’s not X, it’s Y'" (The Atlantic)(gift link).
July 15, 2026
"If Julius Caesar had debuted this year, William Shakespeare might have been accused of writing it with AI."
"A certain suspicious rhetorical device appears again and again in the play. It’s in Act I, Scene ii: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' In Act III, Scene ii: 'Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.' And later in that same scene: 'I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.' These famous lines include what has become perhaps the best-known tic of AI writing—a sentence that tells you what the subject isn’t as well as what it is: It’s not X; it’s Y. Once you start noticing the construction, you see it all over the place...."
Writes Will Oremus, in "The Most Famous AI Writing Tic Is Also the Most Mysterious/Why chatbots love 'it’s not X, it’s Y'" (The Atlantic)(gift link).
"Although chatbots have advanced dramatically in their research and reasoning capacities, they are still fundamentally text-prediction machines. They generate answers one “token”—or chunk of text—at a time, based on what has come before. Each successive word choice factors in both the statistical likelihood of that word coming next in a sequence, based on patterns in the original training data, and the likelihood that it will lead to a highly rated response overall. In other words, the models are always seeking a balance between the clever word choice and the obvious one. When a chatbot uses negative parallelism, according to this theory, it’s essentially hedging between the two...."
Writes Will Oremus, in "The Most Famous AI Writing Tic Is Also the Most Mysterious/Why chatbots love 'it’s not X, it’s Y'" (The Atlantic)(gift link).

33 comments:
Taking him literally, I doubt that if Shakespeare had written Julia Caesar today it would be mistaken for AI slop. Shakespeare has influenced so much of English writing that if he hadn't written his oeuvre back in Elizabethan times, AI writing would sound very different from the way it does sound.
I suppose it would be possible to ask an AI to write something without any recourse to Shakespeare or anyone influenced by him, but I'm not good at AI, and actually I doubt that AI could be that good - what if it just, you know, excluded everyone who had ever used a word or a construction that Shakespeare used, regardless of whether he pioneered it?
Aaron Sorkin made a career of recycled tics and speech patterns- ‘sorkinisms’. It’s not that Sorkin is AI but AI could be Sorkin…
Its comes from plutarch (gah they know nothing)
Don’t blame Shakespeare. It is the political journalism style of gaslight writing. It is not a flu, it is Covid. It’s not from the Wuhan lab that studied Covid, but from a wet market outside. Or more recently, it isn’t a Nazi tattoo, it’s a Christian symbol tattoo.
Circular logic here. Shakespeare is so very dominant in English literature that he, and his derivatives, are a huge percentage of AI's source training material. "Good" AI therefore also derives from his constructs, as artificial intelligence fails if it does not persuasively simulate real humans.
Shakespeare was using a rhetorical device which he was familiar with because Shakespeare's education included the study of rhetoric as used and taught by Greeks and Romans. We and, now, apparently, Chatbot & Co. learn from Shakespeare. So we both are using the devices imitatively and without the understanding we'd have if we'd studied rhetoric. We humans could study rhetorical usages and it would make us more inventive. We'd use less common devices. Now, I wonder if AI could learn from a singleton pattern to use common patterns less? Or is that against the nature of statistical learning?
the BIG Problem with Shakespear is: Too Many Cliches
The Only thing i've EVER read more filled with cliches is The Bible
Wait a minute. You’re saying that Large Language Models that have absorbed human language through texts, video and audio recordings have learned “rhetorical tricks,” that is, evolved forms of writing, and then repeated those rhetorical techniques?
Do these poseurs pretending shock know the idiom “what gets rewarded gets repeated” by chance?
Remember when Erik Swalwell tried to use the same device but it came out “I promise to be bold, without the bold!”? Rhetorical devices should be used carefully.
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings
Political rhetoric also uses the "Some say" "they say" "People say" but...
AI is a basket of correlations that mimics AI.
Shakespeare fat shaming:
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look.
He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.
ANTONY
Fear him not, Caesar; he’s not dangerous.
He is a noble Roman, and well given.
CAESAR
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not.
If AI can give us play equal to that of Shakespeare, I'm all for it.
So we need an AI that writes what can be, unburdened by what has gone before....
Paraphrasing Caesar, "It's only hubris if AI fail."
@tcrosse:
Here you go, the apotheosis of AI in a vacuum:
"
"
Et tu, Oremus?
AI, I knew thee well. It was the star and I the waning moon.
Alas, it is neither discerning nor creative. We need a bigger basket of correlations that will fool more of the people, all of the time. It is an electronic bloc of derivatives, assembled for the amusement of AI. What is an AI to do, bigot, for equitable and inclusive closure?
The models apparently speak like most politicians.
@gilbar: same concept, different joke: "I don't know what is so great about Shakespeare. All he did was take a bunch of famous lines and string them together."
"'I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him," is not "It’s not X; it’s Y," it's "It’s Y; it's not X."
Starting at Cal, in the before-time, I was given a choice for mandatory class. English (boring), Creative Writing (gag me with a spoon), or Rhetoric.
Rhetoric for the win. Thank you Prof. Malia. One of the very few really memorable and useful courses from that half of the catalog.
I'm pretty sure that all the major AIs out there have been trained using Shakespeare.
Well I came to X not to Y
"gilbar said...
the BIG Problem with Shakespear is: Too Many Cliches
The Only thing i've EVER read more filled with cliches is The Bible
7/15/26, 6:14 AM"
Were the cliches cliche when Shakespeare used them? Complaining about them being cliche, would that not the same as looking at historical facts through a modern lens? I'm just asking questions here. It is likely a zionic conspiracy to de-emphasize the importance of Shakespeare to Modern Audiences. First they perfected the procedure on the Bible, then they used it on the Bard...
Or, as the baseball great Yogi Berra was fond of saying, "I am not here to ask you what your country can do for you. I *am* here to ask you what you can do for your country."
Anthropogenic or Artifacial (sic) Intelligence?
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard.
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.
What was so great about Shakespeare? Was he on a buble-gum card? Huh?
If I remember my College English class, Shakespeare "borrowed" plots and characters freely from other sources. And of course his "histories" are well, somewhat grounded on actual history. But I think his words were his own.
Then this might be a problem unless it is not a problem, then?
I say adjust the time a little everyday. What else you got to do?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.