Ask HN: How much AI is in your writing?

I like to “talk to” LLMs, yet I never ever use them in my writings. Not even to proof.

Discussing ideas is insightful as LLMs are actually compendiums of whatever may have been made available before, as found in training sets.

As far as what I read, most of what anyone writes is a varying degree of slop to the proficient reader. First I skim, and gauge information density. Most published content aims to develop word count, exercise the author’s idiosyncrasies, and then provide useful or insightful detail (while I’m sure it begins in the opposite order, the public product usually ends up in reverse.)

Typically human writers bury their point after long winded meandering, often pretending the reader has never heard of or considered the most basic developing ideas.

LLMs like to iterate, itemize, and propose every varying nuance unnecessarily.

I enjoy writing which thoughtfully preempts the audience. Delivering the whole point early on, and then drifts into worth while conjectures or details. This indicates the author values my time and honestly has something worth while to share.

Unless it is purely for enjoyment, such as fiction, in which case build ups and nuanced twists are pleasing.

Beware the itemized and iterative diatribe, for those are the works of mechanical compilation!

To bounce a draft of something off an LLM and get a critique? Frequently. But I include in my prompt to never re-write or suggest improvements, and to solely offer critique. I do my own fixes.

I personally find it okay / convenient to have AI respond to PR review comments with respect to something being addressed or why it was not. That text is often pretty mechanical.