@Jmj Yes. Also I suspect the semantic expressiveness of programming languages is far narrower than that of human languages: they're more precise, but it's much harder (though not impossible!) to write poetry in them. So there's less risk of losing something unique by generating output that tends to occupy the middle of the bell curve.

Why AI writing is so generic, boring, and dangerous: Semantic ablation.

(We can measure semantic ablation through entropy decay. By running a text through successive AI "refinement" loops, the vocabulary diversity (type-token ratio) collapses.)

Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is boring and dangerous

opinion: The subtractive bias we're ignoring

(www.theregister.com)

@cstross

nicely described by Orwell as

'NewSpeak'

Why AI writing is so generic, boring, and dangerous: Semantic ablation.

(We can measure semantic ablation through entropy decay. By running a text through successive AI "refinement" loops, the vocabulary diversity (type-token ratio) collapses.)

Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is boring and dangerous

opinion: The subtractive bias we're ignoring

(www.theregister.com)

@perigrin @cstross but I think in the code case the subtle semantics of the words and combinations are less likely to be the important or desirable aspects, whereas in poetry it’s likely that those aspects are precisely the desired meaning.