Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writing with LLM is not a shame

reflexions.florianernotte.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 155 posts

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#31

Post by amiga386 »

nicbou wrote: post #3

I think it's fair to use AI as an editor, to get feedback about how your ideas are packaged. It's also fair to use it as a clever dictionary, to find the right expressions, or to use correct grammar and spelling. (This post could really use a round of corrections.) But in the end, the message and the reasoning should be yours, and any facts that come from the LLM should be verified. Expecting people to read unverifie…

> Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude.

Quite. Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face.

Even if you're using it as an editor... you know that editors vary in quality, right? You wouldn't accept a random editor just because they're cheap or free. Prose has a lot in it, not just syntax, spelling and semantics, but style, tone, depth... and you'd want competent feedback on all of that. Ideally insightful feedback. Unless you yourself don't care about your craft.

But perhaps you don't care about your craft. And if that's the case... why should anyone else care or waste their time on it?

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#32

Post by jascha_eng »

latexr wrote: post #15
dep_b wrote: post #11

Just got a few recommendations by my colleagues on LinkedIn that were clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. But then again, the message was tuned to specific things I did. Also they were from Eastern Europe, so I imagine they just fixed their input. If you call yourself a writer, having tell tale LLM signs is bad. But for people who's work doesn't involve having a personal voice in written lang…

> clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. Can we please stop propagating this accusation? Alright, sure, maybe LLMs overuse the em-dash, but it is a valid topographical mark which was in use way before LLMs and is even auto-inserted by default by popular software on popular operating systems— it is never sufficient on its own to identify LLM use (and yes, I just used it—multiple times—on purpose…

Fact is that I maybe saw it in 10% of blogs and news articles before Chatgpt. And now it pops up in emails, slack messages, HN/reddit comments and probably more than half of blog posts?

Yes it's not a guarantee but it is at least a very good signal that something was at least partially LLM written. It is also a very practical signal, there are a few other signs but none of them are this obvious.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#34

Post by latexr »

jascha_eng wrote: post #32
latexr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. Can we please stop propagating this accusation? Alright, sure, maybe LLMs overuse the em-dash, but it is a valid topographical mark which was in use way before LLMs and is even auto-inserted by default by popular software on popular operating systems— it is never sufficient on its own to identify LLM use (and yes, I just used it—multiple times—on purpose…

Fact is that I maybe saw it in 10% of blogs and news articles before Chatgpt. And now it pops up in emails, slack messages, HN/reddit comments and probably more than half of blog posts? Yes it's not a guarantee but it is at least a very good signal that something was at least partially LLM written. It is also a very practical signal, there are a few other signs but none of them are this obvious.

> Fact is that I maybe saw it in 10% of blogs and news articles before Chatgpt.

I believe you. But also be aware of the Frequency Illusion. The fact that someone mentions that as an LLM signal also makes you see it more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

> Yes it's not a guarantee but it is at least a very good signal that something was at least partially LLM written.

Which is perfectly congruent with what I said with emphasis:

> it is never sufficient on its own to identify LLM use

I have no quarrel with using it as one signal. My beef is when it’s used as the principal or sole signal.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#35

Post by jillesvangurp »

Of course, there’s no shame in using tools that are available to us. We’re a tool-using species. We’re just a bunch of stupid monkeys without tools. A lot of what we do is about using tools to free up time to do more interesting things than doing things the tools already do better than us.

Like it or not, people are using LLMs a lot. The output isn’t universally good. It depends on what you ask for and how you criticize what comes back. But the simple reality is that the tools are pretty good these days. And not using them is a bit of a mistake.

You can use LLMs to fix simple grammar and style issues, to fact-check argumentation, and to criticize and identify weaknesses. You can also task LLMs with doing background research, double-checking sources, and more.

I’m not a fan of letting LLMs rewrite my text into something completely different. But when I'm in a hurry or in a business context, I sometimes let LLMs do the heavy lifting for my writing anyway.

Ironically, a good example is this article which makes a few nice points. But it’s also full of grammar and style issues that are easily remedied with LLMs without really affecting the tone or line of argumentation (though IMHO that needs work as well). Clearly, this is not a native speaker. But that’s no excuse these days to publish poorly written text. It's sloppy and doesn't look good. And we have tools that can fix it now.

And yes, LLMS were used to refine this comment. But I wrote the comment.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#36

Post by dr_dshiv »

amiga386 wrote: post #31
nicbou wrote: post #3

I think it's fair to use AI as an editor, to get feedback about how your ideas are packaged. It's also fair to use it as a clever dictionary, to find the right expressions, or to use correct grammar and spelling. (This post could really use a round of corrections.) But in the end, the message and the reasoning should be yours, and any facts that come from the LLM should be verified. Expecting people to read unverifie…

> Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude. Quite. Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face. Even if you're using it as an editor... you know that editors vary in quality, right? You wouldn't accept a random editor just because they're cheap or free. Prose has a lot in it, not just syntax, spelling an…

> Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face.

That’s the rudeness. But this takes care of itself— we just adjust trust accordingly

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#37

Post by pevansgreenwood »

latexr wrote: post #12

> One argument to not disclaim it: people do not disclaim if they Photoshop a picture after publishing it and we are surrounded by a lot of edited pictures. That is both a false equivalence and a form of whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism It is a poor argument in general, and a sure-fire way to increase shittiness in the world: “Well, everyone else…

[dead]

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#38

Post by CRConrad »

dep_b wrote: post #11

Just got a few recommendations by my colleagues on LinkedIn that were clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. But then again, the message was tuned to specific things I did. Also they were from Eastern Europe, so I imagine they just fixed their input. If you call yourself a writer, having tell tale LLM signs is bad. But for people who's work doesn't involve having a personal voice in written lang…

> the long emdash [...] tell tale LLM signs

I so wish people would stop spouting this bogus "sign" — but I know I'm going to be disappointed.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#40

Post by amiga386 »

dep_b wrote: post #11

Just got a few recommendations by my colleagues on LinkedIn that were clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. But then again, the message was tuned to specific things I did. Also they were from Eastern Europe, so I imagine they just fixed their input. If you call yourself a writer, having tell tale LLM signs is bad. But for people who's work doesn't involve having a personal voice in written lang…

> it might help them getting them to express things in a better way than before.

You know what people did before the AI fad? They read other people's books. They found and talked to interesting people. They found themselves in, or put themselves in, interesting situations. They spent a lot of time cogitating and ruminating before they decided they ought to write their ideas down. They put in a lot of effort.

Now the AI salemen come, and insist you don't need a wealth of ezperience and talent, you just need their thingy, price £29.99 from all good websites. Now you can be like a Replicant, with your factory-implanted memories instead of true experience.

Post reply on HN