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

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 214 posts

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

#111

Post by bigbuppo »

tsunamifury wrote: post #96

I spent a great deal of time trying to do this at allofus.ai with a team of ex-googlers with our goal being to help creators eventually 'own' their personas and drive and compete to use them to help end users. We believed this was coming and that the best way to handle it was give the real person control over their persona to grow/edit/change and train it as they see fit. I actually own the patent on building an expe…

So what you're saying is that you can put a stop to crap like this by slinging a C&D their way?

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

#112

Post by noslenwerdna »

BrtByte wrote: post #94
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.

LLMs obviously aren't reproducing the internal cognitive process, but they might still capture some of the structural patterns that emerge from it

Interestingly, there is some neuroscience research that transformer architecture resembles "cue based retrieval" in the human brain in some important ways.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X2...

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

#114

Post by kenjackson »

RobRivera wrote: post #87
netdevphoenix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you built an LLM exclusively on the writings and letters of John Steinbeck, you could NOT tell the LLM to solve an integral for you amd expect it to be right. Isn't this obvious? There is not enough latent knowledge of math there to enable current LLMs to approximate anything resembling an integral.

Its obvious to me. Its obvious to you. It isnt obvious to the person I am responding to, and it isnt obvious to majority of individuals I speak with on the matter (which is why AI, personally, is in the bucket of religion amd politics for polite conversation to simply avoid)

Wait -- I'm fairly certain this is obvious to the person you were responding to. It may not be obvious to a lay person (who may not even know LLMs are trained at all). But I think this is obvious to almost all people with even a small understanding of LLMs.

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

#115

Post by pilooch »

jacquesm wrote: post #110

Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.

Revolting and so inevitable though I believe: we're sort of running these already in our minds, we'll be outrun here too.!

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

#116

Post by elmomle »

JCharante wrote: post #105
plewd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like OP originally said, the LLM doesn't have access to the actual process of the author, only the completed/refined output. Not sure why you need a concrete example to "test", but just think about the fact that the LLM has no idea how a writer brainstorms, re-iterates on their work, or even comes up with the ideas in the first place.

why not? datasets are not only finished works, there's datasets that go into the process they're just available in smaller quantities

Let's take the work of Raymond Carver as just one example. He would type drafts which would go through repeated iteration with a massive amount of hand-written markup, revision and excision by his editor.

To really recreate his writing style, you would need the notes he started with for himself, the drafts that never even made it to his editor, the drafts that did make to the editor, all the edits made, and the final product, all properly sequenced and encoded as data.

In theory, one could munge this data and train an LLM and it would probably get significantly better at writing terse prose where there are actually coherent, deep things going on in the underlying story (more generally, this is complicated by the fact that many authors intentionally destroy notes so their work can stand on its own--and this gives them another reason to do so). But until that's done, you're going to get LLMs replicating style without the deep cohesion that makes such writing rewarding to read.

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

#117

Post by randusername »

> When asked if Superhuman considered notifying the people named in its AI feature, or requesting their permission, Gay said, “The experts in Expert Review appear because their published works are publicly available and widely cited.”

Big difference between "AI, rewrite this passage to sound more like Hunter S Thompson" and "Grammarly-brand unauthorized digital agent Hunter S Thompson, provide a critique of my writing"

Let's see what company values informed this decision [0].

> At Grammarly, it all starts with our EAGER values: Ethical, Adaptable, Gritty, Empathetic, and Remarkable. These values are guiding lights that keep the Grammarly experience compassionate and our business competitive.

[0]: https://www.grammarly.com/about

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

#118

Post by abirch »

nxobject wrote: post #104
abirch wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Annie Duke said in her book Quit, "quitting on time usually feels like quitting too early." Grammarly was a great in the 2010s, but now it's too easily replaced. It reminds me of winzip.

Depressingly enough, if Grammarly does throw in the hat, we'll lose an application of clear utility that could be run entirely locally.

It seems like there are many apps that can be run locally that use LLMs. Although I haven't used this, I found it on reddit and it's made by a student. https://github.com/theJayTea/WritingTools

Seems like there could be others that are better.

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

#119

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

simianwords wrote: post #67
Planktonne wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why do you say it has a different process? When I ask it to do integrals it uses the same process as me

Even if the visualization of the integration process via steps typed out in the chat interface is the same as what you would have done on paper, the way the steps were obtained is likely very different for you and LLM. You recognized the integral's type and applied corresponding technique to solve it. LLM found the most likely continuation of tokens after your input among all the data it has been fed, and those tokens happen to be the typography for the integral steps. It is very unlikely are you doing the same, i.e. calculating probabilities of all the words you know and then choosing the one with the highest probability of being correct.
Post reply on HN