Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

Post by RichardLake » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 11:55 AM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #49

RichardLake wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't learning, it can read things in its context, and generate materials to assist answering further prompts but that doesn't change the model weights. It is just updating the context. Unless you are actually fine tuning models, in which case sure, learning is taking place.

i don't know why you think it matters how it works internally. whether it changes its weights or not is not important. does it behave like a person who learns a thing? yes. if i showed a human a codebase and asked them questions with good answers - yes i would say the human learned it. the analogy breaks at a point because of limited context but learning is a good enough word.

Post by Planktonne » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 12:04 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #50

wongarsu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will produce output that emulates the patters of Shakespeare's works, but you won't arrive at them by the same process Shakespeare did. You are subject to similar limitations as the llm in this case, just to a lesser degree (you share some 'human experience' with the author, and might be able to reason about their though process from biographies and such) As another example, I can write a story about hobbits and…

that's fair and you have highlighted a good limitation. but we do this all the time - we try to understand the author, learn from them and mimic them and we succeed to good extent. that's why we have really good fake van gogh's for which a person can't tell the difference. of course you can't do the same as the original person but you get close enough many times and as humans we do this frequently. in the context of…

Post by treetalker » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 1:02 PM UTC

drbig wrote: post #3

The most interesting is the realization that if the LLM's input is only the output of a professional (human), then by definition the LLM cannot mimic the process the (human) professional applied to get from whatever input they had to produce the output. In other words an LLM can spit out a plausible "output of X", however it cannot encode the process that lead X to transform their inputs into their output.

Post by simianwords » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

Planktonne wrote: post #63

simianwords wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's fair and you have highlighted a good limitation. but we do this all the time - we try to understand the author, learn from them and mimic them and we succeed to good extent. that's why we have really good fake van gogh's for which a person can't tell the difference. of course you can't do the same as the original person but you get close enough many times and as humans we do this frequently. in the context of…

You're still confusing "has a result that looks the same" and "uses the same process"; these are different things.

Post by simianwords » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 1:44 PM UTC

mysterydip wrote: post #62

simianwords wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we have steps for understanding any author's english and creative process (generally not specific to an author) would you agree then it is possible for an llm to do it?

Repeating a process, yes for sure, even (pseudorandom?) variations on a process. Understanding a process is a different question, and I’m not sure how you would measure that. In school we would have a test with various questions to show you understand the concept of addition, for example. But while my calculator can perfectly add any numbers up to its memory limit, it has no understanding of addition.