LLMs are not the root cause here, they're just an accelerant. This was always inevitable with the progression of globalisation. Even before the internet, kids were watching Disney cartoons across the world (to be fair, often dubbed in the local language, but still an example of how global culture had been narrowing.) Perhaps this wasn't felt as strongly by those in the US quite as quickly as the rest of the world, because their culture just happened to be the source for many of these common elements.
There are always trade-offs. Globalisation has too many benefits for most to want to go back. It is up to us to intentionally cultivate our cultural uniqueness, but I'm not sure the corporate environment was ever the right place to do so, given it was already constrained by rules and etiquette, and motivated by a desire to encourage universal communication styles. Instead we have to take it upon our selves, in a very intentional way outside the corporate setting, to cultivate our own unique cultural expressions to thrive. Failure to do so either directly, or by proxy, means cultural extinction, as has been the case of many cultures that have passed before.
How are LLMs not the cause here? Reading online content is unpleasant these days because it all uses the same vocabulary and style. You can tell that an LLM wrote or edited it and it grates on you.
I'd need to see a study showing that this was already a trend, because globalization should increase linguistic complexity via exposure to other cultures. I certainly didn't use the term chaebol until the rise of Korean pop culture.
> globalization should increase linguistic complexity via exposure to other cultures. I certainly didn't use the term chaebol until the rise of Korean pop culture.
Globalization moves every culture towards each other, with a higher weight on dominant cultures. You borrow a few Korean words, they borrow a few more English words. McDonalds pop up everywhere, everyone buys the same phones, hotels across the world converge towards a standard experience, and so on. The end result of such a process is a monoculture. Not now, not medium term, but I expect a few centuries of globalism would suffice to blend all extant cultures into a slurry.
Per https://eoconf.com/index.php/icmse/article/view/578, globalization decreases complexity of individual languages through standardization, but increases overall complexity by creating new multilingual and hybrid forms.
Either way, LLMs are an entirely different mechanism for shrinking linguistic diversity than just people watching Disney.
Yup, I bounce very quickly as soon as I see typical formulaic LLM sentences. If the person online hasn't bothered writing the content, I don't see why I would waste time reading it.
Personally, I use LLM to do a quick pass on my writing to see if there's any glaring issues but would never ask it to reformulate what I wrote. I feel that you then lose the voice behind it.
I'd argue that Disney is responsible for a certain globalisation of culture but they help with the language problem. We're a multilingual family with me speaking French and my wife speaking Cantonese (with school being English and Mandarin). Disney is one of the very few cartoon maker that actually dubs in all 4 languages. It would not be this easy to find Cantonese content otherwise. And the quality of dubs is surprisingly high. They don't only translate, the actually adapt to the local culture.
I agree, Disneys’ dubs are generally of high quality.
Netflix seems to just grab radio announcers or something. The dubs are stripped of all emotions and acting. It’s like the voices are reading out an advertisement.
Obviously there’s exceptions, but Disney seems to employ actual actors. The dubs feel natural and native for the most part.
Yes and not only that, they translate lyrics so that it rhymes and preserve the connotations without doing literal translations. An example of that is Moana's French translation compared to original. The translation of the You're welcome song in Pour les Hommes (translate to For mankind) is a great example, the meaning of the song is kept while also keeping the same rhyme for the chorus.
Even something like Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is very well translated. The Cantonese translation is very good and replaces "Hot Diggidy Dog" with something that works better for young Cantonese speakers...
Only criticism I'd make is that the subtitles tend to be more literal translations rather than transcribing the dubs.
> This was always inevitable with the progression of globalisation.
To a certain extent that's probably true, but there are limits to this. Local cultures, dialects etc. persevere despite open floodgates of communication. As an example take small-ish countries like Denmark or Sweden which despite generations of mixing still have distinct local dialects. It's not clear that those would just disappear naturally. With LLM tooling, such equalizing could be stronger though.
Though, ironically, at least for some tasks, Russian is a better choice than English.
Back in 2025, a research paper titled "One ruler to measure them all: Benchmarking multilingual long-context language models" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01996) published some benchmark results for finding and aggregating information found in long documents, measured by language. English ranked 6th in accuracy.
The top performers out of the 26 they measured were, in order: 1. Polish, 2. Russian, 3. French, 4. Italian, 5. Spanish, 6. English, 7. Ukrainian, 8. Swedish, 9, Portuguese, 10. German.
Ruby is beautiful in its design, but it made imports and namespaces (a.k.a. modules) separate concepts. This is so flexible it became hard to ever find anything easily in practice.
Likewise, it made classes incredibly easy to extend, which led to a monkey patching bonanza and far too much magic everywhere (Rails being by far the worst offender but not the only one). It meant having to keep too much stuff in your head and needing deep framework/library familiarity just to be able to understand basic code.
In the end, I feel like the incredible flexibility was Ruby's undoing, not just lack of library availability for a specific popular application. I was a Ruby zealot at one point but it began to lose its lustre not because it wasn't beautiful in theory, but because it was inconvenient in practice. In some ways, Python's restrictiveness became its greatest attribute. Then Python 3 helped to fix a lot of the inconsistency.
Both Python and Ruby have a consistent logic to them, just not consistent with each other. Just as all attributes are methods in Ruby, so all methods area attributes in Python, etc. Things get much easier in either language if you stop fighting their internal logic.
I like Python but this was always actually one of my pain points. The CPython C API is full of foot guns, the API surface is expansive, and writing against it requires a lot of careful care. Anyone who's ever written C modules for both languages would be able to attest how much more pleasant the experience was for Ruby than Python.
Did you mean to say that Ruby doesn't link name spaces to file system paths? Ruby has namespaces and they're far more flexible than Python's... too flexible in my opinion, making it harder to find things.
I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. You can return unnamed lists, dictionaries, numbers, among others, or combinations of any of these. With some very light syntax sugar magic you can even make returning tuples look like your returning multiple values.
I'm not sure if I would call whitespace-as-syntax arbitrary, though it is opinionated. I admit though that for me it started feeling like a time saver once I got over my anti whitespace as syntax zealotry.
If all I'm doing with git rebase is reorganising my commits, and I have to deal with conflicts, after I'm done, I always git diff my pre-rebase head with post rebase head commit hash. I can quickly see I've messed something up if the diff isn't empty. For more complex tasks it's best to leave the rearranging until last, but where not possible, the diff is still pretty useful to double check my work.
You don't need to keep their hashes because git keeps them for you. If you realise too late that things went terribly wrong, you can get the pre-rebase hashes with "git reflog". (It can take a little getting used to knowing how to identify them quickly after a rebase but they're there.)
Better yet, git reset ORIG_HEAD or whatever is usually sufficient[0]. The reflog is the general solution, but git's magic references do provide quite a few niceties.
I think there's no denying they each have an ideological bent (as is their right as private companies). I have had Copilot deny me access to historical information on ethical grounds, even though I don't think anyone would find it controversial (clearly it was overtuned, GPT and Claude had no problem answering the same question). What is different though is that they are each allowed to have their own perspective instead of a singular mandated one.
That was guard rails in the harness. Not the model. We are talking about baking it into the model. Denying to do something is also very different to changing historical facts like China does.
> very different to changing historical facts like China does.
Oh but they're trying. The right-wing usage of things like "woke" and "DEI" primarily serve to hide/destroy historical realities. [1]
Florida has it's "STOP WOKE" act that forces teachers to talk about how slaves learned skills/benefited from slavery[2] and that various massacres also had black perpetrators.
What is this other than changing historical facts? About fucking chattel slavery for Christ's sake.
And also, not taking a side here, plenty of woke partisans valued righteousness over truth in the 2020 era. The 1619 project which was a whole NYT backed big thing had a bunch of factual errors.
The real rub is when you get into "shared facts" that Americans were all taught in high school civics but the rest of the world wasn't. If you've mostly been in America, it can seem like someone's deliberately lying about history but they simply weren't properly educated with the Correct Interpretation.
There are always trade-offs. Globalisation has too many benefits for most to want to go back. It is up to us to intentionally cultivate our cultural uniqueness, but I'm not sure the corporate environment was ever the right place to do so, given it was already constrained by rules and etiquette, and motivated by a desire to encourage universal communication styles. Instead we have to take it upon our selves, in a very intentional way outside the corporate setting, to cultivate our own unique cultural expressions to thrive. Failure to do so either directly, or by proxy, means cultural extinction, as has been the case of many cultures that have passed before.
reply