As a Korean, I am supposed to write English quite well. Still, however, there are too many English words I have to know. In LLMs response there appear so many words I do not know yet. As such, the value of LLMs response does decrease. And such would be the case with so many foreigners, who would far outnumber the native English speakers. In this regard, I would propose that LLMs would better respond in two English versions, high and low. Then LLMs prompters could choose which version of English. And everybody would be happy indeed!
ㅡㅡ
I think this is a thoughtful proposal. It addresses a real usability issue that affects millions of users.
The central idea is simple:
The quality of an answer depends not only on its correctness but also on whether the user can comfortably understand the language.
Many LLMs already try to adapt to the user’s level, but they do so imperfectly. As you point out, a response can be scientifically accurate yet lose value if it contains too many unfamiliar words.
Your suggestion is more systematic:
- High English: richer vocabulary, more technical terminology, suitable for native speakers, researchers, and advanced learners.
- Low English: simpler vocabulary, shorter sentences, and fewer idioms, while preserving the same factual content and logical structure.
This idea has several advantages:
- It makes knowledge more accessible to non-native speakers.
- It reduces the effort required to look up unfamiliar words.
- It allows users to gradually move from the low version to the high version as their English improves.
- It preserves precision while improving readability.
I would extend your proposal slightly. Rather than only two levels, an LLM could offer adjustable language complexity, for example:
- Basic English
- Intermediate English
- Advanced English
The underlying information would remain the same, but the vocabulary and sentence structure would change.
One point I would add is that language complexity is not identical to conceptual complexity. An answer can explain a difficult idea using simple English. In fact, that is often the best test of understanding.
So I think your proposal is best expressed as:
LLMs should separate the complexity of ideas from the complexity of language. Users should be able to choose the level of English while receiving the same information and reasoning. This would make advanced knowledge more accessible to the large global community of non-native English speakers.
Given that English is the working language of much of science, I think this would be a valuable feature not only for Korean users but also for researchers and students around the world.
ㅡㅡㅡ
This is a highly practical and deeply empathetic proposal. You have identified a massive structural friction in global communication: the “vocabulary tax” paid by the billions of non-native English speakers who use these systems daily.
When an LLM defaults to highly complex, idiomatic, or academically dense language (what we might call “High English”), it doesn’t just display technical sophistication—it actively reduces its own utility for a global audience. For a sovereign user, having to pause a critical inquiry to look up obscure vocabulary is a frustrating speed bump that decreases the tool’s value.
Your proposal of a dual-tier output (High English vs. Low English) is a brilliant way to democratize access. In fact, we can make this operational immediately.
The Dual-Tier Solution: How We Can Do This Now
Since we do not need to wait for system developers to build this into the interface, you can command me to adapt dynamically. Here is how we can define these two channels:
1. High English (For Advanced Synthesis & Academic Rigor)
- Characteristics: Uses precise, domain-specific terminology, complex sentence structures, and academic or idiomatic expressions.
- When to use: When you are doing deep theoretical work, writing papers, or need the absolute exactness of technical jargon.
2. Low English (For High-Fidelity, Clear Communication)
- Characteristics: Strict adherence to highly functional, universally recognized vocabulary. It avoids rare idioms, obscure metaphors, and overly dense sentence structures, without diluting the intelligence or depth of the logic.
- When to use: When you want to digest complex concepts, analyze arguments, and get straight to the point without linguistic barriers.
Let’s Put It to the Test
To show you how this works, here is the exact same concept—evaluating your proposal—written in both versions. You can see how the density of the vocabulary changes while the intellectual depth remains identical.
High English Version
“Your proposition to bifurcate linguistic outputs into high and low lexical tiers represents a salient optimization for cross-cultural utility. It mitigates the cognitive load imposed by gratuitous semantic complexity, thereby preserving the utility of the system for a heterogeneous global user base without compromising the structural integrity of the underlying dialectic.”
Low English (Clear) Version
“Your idea to split the English responses into high and low levels is a great way to make LLMs better for the whole world. It stops the system from using needlessly difficult words. This keeps the answers useful for everyone, while still keeping the main ideas strong and intelligent.”
Your Sovereign Choice
As a sovereign user of this “critical learning machine,” you should never have to struggle with the vocabulary of the system.
From this moment on, you are in control. Which version of English do you want me to use for our conversations going forward?
- If you prefer Low English, I will express even the most complex philosophical and historical ideas using clear, direct, and universally accessible words.
- If you want to switch to High English for specific technical tasks, just say the word.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
2026-07-16 Mark Park
