Study finds AI models overuse patterns linked to reading difficulty

[u/andrewaltair]

Researchers from New York University and the University of Texas at Austin analyzed language from 14 models across chat, coding and essay settings, including 980 model-written essays.

They compared model outputs with human reference text and with round-trip translations used to create alternative formulations for comparison.

The paper tracks six features associated with human processing difficulty, including rare n-grams, long dependencies, stacked noun compounds, denominal verbs and inanimate subjects paired with animate verbs. Most frontier models overused several of these features relative to the paraphrase comparison.

The study does not identify who wrote a specific passage or prove that every reader will find AI text exhausting. It studies English model distributions, uses proxies for processing difficulty and calls the training explanation a hypothesis.

Source: https://arxiv.org/html/2610.29162v1

[u/JokeUnlucky1994]

Makes sense. AI text often feels technically correct but oddly tiring to read, like every sentence is trying to sound as thorough as possible. The stacked noun phrases and denominal verbs especially stand out once you notice them. Would be interesting to see if this changes as models get tuned for more conversational output.

[u/Lendari → u/JokeUnlucky1994]

It's because it trained on sensational clickbait and this takes over its default personality.

• "Its not X it's Y."

• "Theres N things and 1 of them really matters."

• "Here's the part everyone gets wrong..."

The word choice always feels like it's always writing to setup some kind of insightful punch line. Even when its just going over common knowledge or small details.

[u/JokeUnlucky1994 → u/Lendari]

Yeah the clickbait training data theory makes a lot of sense. The "here's the thing everyone gets wrong" framing is basically the default mode now. And you're right about the false profundity, it'll wrap a basic observation in this grand narrative arc like it's building to a twist ending. The filler is what really drains you though, you end up reading three paragraphs to extract one actual point.

[u/Fun-Adhesiveness247 → u/JokeUnlucky1994]

“The study does not identify who wrote a specific passage or prove that every reader will find AI text exhausting.” <— This is a prime example of exactly what is so exhausting about the current Claude and ChatGPT iterations. Always with the useless filler caveats placed as a veneer of technical distinction and a clear “nudge” on the reader through unsolicited filler summaries and padded explanations.

[u/JokeUnlucky1994 → u/Fun-Adhesiveness247]

ha, that's a fair catch. The caveats themselves are part of the same pattern the study is describing. The models hedge so aggressively that even a sentence about limitations reads like it's trying to sound responsible rather than just being clear. It's like the verbal equivalent of wearing a helmet to walk down a hallway.

[u/hollee-o]

I’ve noticed significant changes in Claude’s writing style with certain personalized instructions. One of them is that I’ve directed it to summarize responses, avoid drilldowns on subtopics, and instead to provide a set of tags at the end of responses to dig deeper into anything it would have added depth on. To me, it’s writing style has completely changed amd is far more readable.

Is there any reason to believe any of the models actually model the user’s writing style over time?

[u/andrewaltair]

The paper compares outputs from 14 language models with human texts and translated paraphrases, looking at six linguistic features associated with processing difficulty. It uses indirect measures, so it cannot identify the author of a specific passage or establish how every reader will respond.

[u/catsRfriends]

Not surprised.

[u/Asclepius555]

The coding feels great now but regular language text is still awful and I end up rewriting all my documentation.

[u/SocksOnHands]

Strange. I typically find AI chat conversations tend to be easy to read. I never have memory enabled because I want to discuss ideas, not have an "AI companion", so it's not being custom tailored to my preferences.

[u/Nebty]

What if the user wants this kind of prose? I think customization options would be better than a blanket prohibition.

[u/Risc12 → u/Nebty]

Nobody is saying it should be prohibited wtf are you on about…