LastWords: Boring Problems Revisited

There is a widespread sense that AI-generated text has recently become harder to understand. In this study, we investigate a set of psycholinguistic features that are known to correlate with human processing difficulty (e.g., object relative clauses, long syntactic dependencies, low-frequency n-grams). Using a novel corpus of AI-generated text across diverse domains, we find that AI models use these difficult features more often than paraphrases generated by round-trip translation. Compared with human writing, all nine frontier and near-frontier models use more inanimate subjects with animate verbs and more low-frequency n-grams, and most also use longer dependencies, more stacked nouns, and more reduced object relatives in conversation; we also demonstrate substantial variation across model families. We propose and test a hypothesis as to why: while human language is optimized for successful communication, AI-generated text is increasingly optimized for other goals like math, code, and reasoning, in which there is a pressure for information density rather than successful communication. We provide a proof-of-concept for this hypothesis by fine-tuning a language model under a length penalty, which leads to a divergence from human-like linguistic behavior. Our findings highlight the axes of misalignment between linguistic processing demands in humans and LLMs, and point toward possible remedies.

Modern automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems trained on extremely large datasets can produce transcripts with numbers written in Arabic numerals. This creates a need for fair comparison with models that output verbatim texts and proper processing of reference transcripts. Popular approaches often reduce text normalization to lowercase and remove punctuation, with no additional normalization applied to languages other than English. In this work, we analyze the impact of normalization of numerical expressions in the evaluation of ASR systems in various languages, using Polish as an example of a highly inflective language. We perform experiments on VoxPopuli and The Polish Parliamentary speech datasets and estimate word error rate (WER) differences for different text normalization approaches. We show that the difference due to the lack of number normalization in WER may be substantial - more than 2 percentage points, and often higher than the differences between systems in popular multilingual benchmarks.

Recent advances in language models have prompted a growing body of work that questions prevailing evaluation practices. However, many such critiques have already been discussed in natural language processing (NLP), a field with a long history of methodological reflection on evaluation. We conduct a scoping review spanning four decades and develop a taxonomy of 22 recurring concerns. For each concern, we examine how recently it was discussed in the reviewed literature and whether it receives explicit attention in institutional checklists, finding that some concerns have become less visible in literature and many lack coverage in these checklists. Our work provides an overview of the major concerns in evaluation methodology that have shaped the field and identifies potential targets for renewed investigation and field-level intervention by the research community.