Name: Why Are People Starting to Sound Like ChatGPT? | Adam Aleksic | TED
Uploaded: 2025-12-31T13:47:30.000Z
Duration: 5 min 12 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

How sure are you that you can tell what's real online?

You might think it's easy to spot an obviously AI generated image, and

you're probably aware that algorithms are biased in some way.

But all the evidence is suggesting that we're pretty bad at understanding that on a subconscious level.

Take, for example, the growing perception gap in America.

We keep over and overestimating how extreme other people's political beliefs are.

And this is only getting worse with social media, because algorithms show us the most extreme picture of reality.

As an etymologist and content creator, I always see controversial messages go more viral because they generate more engagement than a neutral perspective.

But that means we all end up seeing this more extreme version of reality, and

we're clearly starting to confuse that with actual reality.

The same thing is currently happening with AI chatbots, because you probably assume that ChatGPT is speaking English to you a except it's not speaking English in the same way that the algorithm's not showing you reality.

There are always distortions depending on what goes into the model and how it's trained.

Like, we know that ChatGPT says Delve at way higher rates than usual, possibly because OpenAI outsourced its training process to workers in Nigeria who do actually say delve more frequently.

Over time, though, that little linguistic overrepresentation got reinforced into the model even more than in the workers own dialects.

Now that's affecting everybody's language.

Multiple studies have found that since ChatGPT came out, people everywhere have been saying the word delve more in spontaneous spoken conversation.

Essentially, we're subconsciously confusing the AI version of language with actual language.

But that means that the real thing is, ironically getting closer to the machine version of the thing.

We're in a positive feedback loop with the AI representing reality, us thinking that's the real reality, and

then regurgitating it so that the AI can be fed more of our data.

You can also see this happening with the algorithm through words like hyper pop, which wasn't really part of our cultural lexicon until Spotify noticed an emerging cluster of similar users in their algorithm.

As soon as they identified it and introduced a hyper pop playlist, however, the aesthetic was given a direction.

Now people began to debate what did and did not qualify as hyper pop.

The label and the playlist made the phenomenon more real by giving them something to identify with or against.

And as more people identified with hyper pop, more musicians also started making hyper pop music.

All the while, the cluster of similar listeners and the algorithm grew larger and larger, and

Spotify kept pushing it more and more because these platforms want to amplify cultural trends to keep you on the app.

But that means we also lose the distinction between a real trend and an artificially inflated trend.

And yet, this is how all fads now enter the mainstream.

We start with a latent cultural desire, like maybe some people are interested in Matcha or Labubu or Dubai Chocolate.

The algorithm identifies this desire and pushes it to similar users, making the phenomenon more of a thing.

But again, just like how ChatGPT misrepresented the word delve, the algorithm is probably misrepresenting reality.

Now more businesses are making Labubu content because they think that's the desire.

More influencers are also making labubu trends because we have to tap into trends to go viral.

And yet the algorithm is only showing you the visually provocative items that work in the video format.

TikTok has a limited idea of who you are as a user, and

there's no way that matches up with your complex desires as a human being.

And that's assuming that social media is trying to faithfully represent reality, which it isn't.

Instead, it's only trying to do what's going to make money for them.

It's in Spotify's interest to have you listening to Hyper Pop, and

it's in TikTok's interest to have you looking at the Boo Boos, because that's commodifiable.

So once again, we have this difference between reality and the representation of reality, where they're actually constantly influencing one another.

But it's incredibly dangerous to ignore that distinction, because this goes beyond our language and our consumptive behaviors.

This affects the world we see as possible.

Evidence suggests that ChatGPT is more conservative when speaking the Farsi language, likely because the limited training texts in Iran reflect the more conservative political climate in the region.

Does that mean that an Iranian ChatGPT user will think more conservative thoughts?

We know that Elon Musk regularly makes changes to his chatbot Grok when he doesn't like how it's responding, and

that he uses his platform X to artificially amplify his tweets.

Does that mean that the millions of Grok and X users are subconsciously being trained to align with Musk's ideology?

We need to constantly remember that these aren't neutral tools.

Everything that ends up in your social media feed or in your chatbot responses is actually filtered through many layers of of what's good for the platform, what makes money, and

what conforms to the platform's incorrect idea about who you are.

When we ignore this, we view reality through a constant survivorship bias, which affects our understanding of the world.

After all, if you're talking more like ChatGPT, you're probably thinking more like ChatGPT as well.

But you can fight this if you constantly ask yourself, why?

If you don't ask yourself these questions, their version of reality is going to become your version of reality, so stay real.