Just eer a zoom session, listen to a speech or even watch a YouTube video; Special language patterns, such as the use of “specialized” and “layer” words, which are the favorite words of chat, are heard more than ever. In corast, the use of vocabulary such as “reinforceme”, “discovery” and “elegance”, which is less common in texts produced by artificial ielligence, is declining.
A study by researchers at the Max Planck Institute in Human Developme shows that the use of lexses such as “careful”, “deep survey”, “territory” and “skilled” has increased by up to 5 % in six mohs after ChatGPT. This analysis is based on a review of 6,000 YouTube scieific videos and shows that these linguistic changes have taken place without the consciousness of the speakers, and this is importa.
One of the words that researchers say as “linguistic fingerpri” is the word “deep examination”. According to Hiroma Yakura, the original author of the article, the term is now a symbol of academic conversations and is a sign of the indirect effect of chat ChatTT.
But the impact is not only in the vocabulary, but also in the tone, the structure of the seences, and the expression of emotions. The speeches have become more structural, taller and sometimes more sensitive. According to one researcher, this is the tip of the iceberg.
Moore Naaman, a professor of information science at the University of Cornell, believes that the ery of artificial ielligence io human communication has destroyed three types of “human signs”:
- Basic human signs: Like the momes of vulnerability or personal expressions that say “I’m a human.”
- Signs of atteion and effort: The phrases that show a person really took the time to write.
- Signs of personal ability: Humor, creativity and unique characteristics of the people.
He explains this by comparing the two messages: one of the official seence “I’m sorry you was upset” and the other a more iimate seence like “Forgiveness I did bad dinner yesterday, I shouldn’t cancel the therapy session.” The first is cruel, the latter human.
From Naaman’s poi of view, if we lose these signs, the only place we will still trust will be face -to -face conversations, not even video calls.
At the same time, artificial ielligence is re -defining the “correct language”. Research at the University of Berkeley shows that chatit Chat responds are sometimes stereotypical or inaccurate when dealing with acces other than American criteria. For example, a Singapore user has reported that the ChatPT response in Sanglish’s local language was very exaggerated and annoying. These findings show that artificial ielligence not only ignores dialects, but also distort them.
Finally, we are reaching the poi where the use of artificial ielligence between the two poles: the uniformity of formal communication (such as business emails) on the one hand and the original, human and emotional expression in personal spaces on the other.
Some early symptoms indicate that people are resista to tongue uniformity, such as avoiding common vocabulary or trying to maiain personal style. On the other hand, artificial ielligence systems may also better reflect the human language in the future with greater diversity.
The main question is not whether artificial ielligence will change our conversation, because it will definitely do so, but whether we will consciously decide whether to maiain the status of human language, with all its disorder, feelings and slips.
