HackerPapers

arXiv:2410.16107cs.CL

Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles

Alex Reinhart, Ben Markey, Michael Laudenbach, Kachatad Pantusen, Ronald Yurko, Gordon Weinberg, David West Brown

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of writing grammatical text that follows instructions, answers questions, and solves problems. As they have advanced, it has become difficult to distinguish their output from human-written text. While past research has found some differences in surface features such as word choice and punctuation, and developed classifiers to detect LLM output, none has studied the rhetorical styles of LLMs. Using several variants of Llama 3 and GPT-4o, we construct two parallel corpora of human- and LLM-written texts from common prompts. Using Douglas Biber's set of lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical features, we identify systematic differences between LLMs and humans and between different LLMs. These differences persist when moving from smaller models to larger ones, and are larger for instruction-tuned models than base models. This observation of differences demonstrates that despite their advanced abilities, LLMs struggle to match human stylistic variation. Attention to more advanced linguistic features can hence detect patterns in their behavior not previously recognized.

arXiv comments
7 pages, 4 figures, 1 table
Journal reference
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 (2025), e2422455122
DOI
doi:10.1073/pnas.2422455122
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language

On Hacker News

Linked by 2 identifiable commenters in 10 comments across 10 threads, from Dec 2024 to Oct 2026. Found in 1 HN submission from Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments10 threads

  1. LLM Voice 1 comment
    • The "regression to the mean" or "it's just the training data" hypothesis doesn't work. Pretrained models do not have these weird writing styles and sound much more human. It's only after instruction tuning -- SFT, DPO, etc. -- that LLMs develop weird writing styles. That is, the…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

  2. Claude's Load-Bearing Seams 1 comment
    • It's not the training data. When we've tested the writing style of base models that have not gone through instruction tuning, they're much more human-like (https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16107). The style shift seems to come from something in the instruction-tuning process, so our…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

  3. Humanising LLM Outputs Is Dumb 1 comment
    • > Well, what do you expect? LLMs are trained on blithering, mostly from web sites. So you get blithering out. I realize this isn't entirely serious, but I can't resist pointing out that this doesn't seem to be a good explanation for why LLMs write the way they do. When we've…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

  4. LLM Writing Tropes.md 1 comment
    • I work on research studying LLM writing styles, so I am going to have to steal this. I've seen plenty of lists of LLM style features, but this is the first one I noticed that mentions "tapestry", which we found is GPT-4o's second-most-overused word (after "camaraderie", for some…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

    • Sure, if you're learning to write and want lots of examples of a particular style, LLMs can generate that for you. Just don't assume that is a normal writing style, or that it matches a particular genre (say, workplace communication, or academic writing, or whatever). Our…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

    • I don't think the AI companies are systematically working to make their models sound more human. They're working to make them better at specific tasks, but the writing styles are, if anything, even more strange as they advance. Comparing base and instruction-tuned models, the…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

    • In our studies of ChatGPT's grammatical style (https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16107), it really loves past and present participial phrases (2-5x more usage than humans). I didn't see any here in a glance through the lightfastness section, though I didn't try running the whole…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

  5. GPT-4.5 1 comment
    • Maybe, but I'm not sure how much the style is deliberate vs. a consequence of the post-training tasks like summarization and problem solving. Without seeing the post-training tasks and rating systems it's hard to judge if it's a deliberate style or an emergent consequence of…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

    • Freely available preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16107 I'm biased (as an author), but I think Figure 3 is the key result, as well as Tables 4 and 5 in the appendix. (Or Table 1 in the published version.) The grammatical and rhetorical differences in the models, even when…

      capnrefsmmatView on HNParent context

    • the authors of this paper[0] were able to use AI to figure out if a block of text was written by AI, so hopefully this becomes a tool available to educators very soon. [0] https://arxiv.org/html/2410.16107v1

      nomatView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

  • Show HN: Isitslop.xyz, a free AI-writing detector built on latest research

    I have a weird habit of guessing whether something's AI before I check, especially on LinkedIn and Reddit (for obvious reasons). The detectors I used to confirm were mostly junk and built to sell you a "humanizer" upsell, so I went and read the actual research on what gives AI text away in 2026, then built my own (no login and free) The main sources I used are these: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07016 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183 https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.426/…

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.