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

131–140 of 214 posts

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

#131

Post by simianwords »

elmomle wrote: post #116
JCharante wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can a human replicate style without understanding process? Yes we can. We do it all the time with Shakespeare. Why not LLMs?

I can do it at the moment with Shakespeare an LLMs.

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

#132

Post by jacquesm »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #127
jacquesm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably mean necromancy. I probably did not. Then I would have written that. They are fucking over the dead. They are clearly not communicating with the dead.

What's with the excessively hostile attitude? That's more of a Reddit thing than a semi-professional discussion site that has this as a guideline: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> What's with the excessively hostile attitude? That's more of a Reddit thing than a semi-professional discussion site that has this as a guideline:

>> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Which part was snarky, excessively hostile or unprofessional?

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

#133

Post by simianwords »

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #119
simianwords wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 token…

> the way the steps were obtained is likely very different for you and LLM

this is not true, any examples?

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

#134

Post by simianwords »

tovej wrote: post #75
simianwords wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no it does and what you said is easily falsifiable. can you provide a _single_ example where LLM might fail? lets test this now.

Yes, what I said should be falsifiable. The burden is on you to give me an example, but I can give you an idea. You need to show me an LLM applying writing techniques do not have examples in its corpus. You would have to use some relatively unknown author, I can suggest Iida Turpeinen. There will be interviews of her describing her writing technique, but no examples that aren't from Elolliset (Beasts of the sea). Fin…

>You need to show me an LLM applying writing techniques do not have examples in its corpus.

why are you bringing this constraint?

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

#135

Post by simianwords »

RobRivera wrote: post #78
simianwords wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't get what the point of what you are saying is? i can ask it to explain how to solve an integral right now with steps. i can ask it to tell me how to write like a person X right now.

Actually this is the crux and the nuance which makes discussing LLM specifics a pain in the general space. 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. Instead what you will receive is a text that follows a statistically derived most likely (in accordance to the perplexity tuning) response to such a qu…

>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.

this shows that you have very less idea on how llm's work.

LLM that is trained only on john steinbeck will not work at all. it simply does not have the generalised reasoning ability. it necessarily needs inputs from every source possible including programming and maths.

You have completely ignored that LLMs have _generalised_ reasoning ability that it derives from disparate sources.

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

#136

Post by mynameisvlad »

jacquesm wrote: post #132
mynameisvlad wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with the excessively hostile attitude? That's more of a Reddit thing than a semi-professional discussion site that has this as a guideline: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> What's with the excessively hostile attitude? That's more of a Reddit thing than a semi-professional discussion site that has this as a guideline: >> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Which part was snarky, excessively hostile or unprofessional?

The beginning, middle and end.

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

#137

Post by mold_aid »

elmomle wrote: post #116
JCharante wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A good point. "Famous author" is a marketing term for Grammarly here; it's easy to conceive of an "author" as being an individual that we associate with a finite set of published works, all of which contain data.

But authors have not done this work alone. Grammarly is not going to sell "get advice from the editorial team at Vintage" or "Grammarly requires your wife to type the thing out first, though"

I'll also note that no human would probably want advice from the living versions of the author themselves.

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

#138

Post by dolebirchwood »

randusername wrote: post #117

> 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 writin…

> it all starts with our EAGER values

Sounds like something I'd expect to see on a banner in an elementary school classroom.

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

#139

Post by bigfishrunning »

simianwords wrote: post #135
RobRivera wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this is the crux and the nuance which makes discussing LLM specifics a pain in the general space. 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. Instead what you will receive is a text that follows a statistically derived most likely (in accordance to the perplexity tuning) response to such a qu…

>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. this shows that you have very less idea on how llm's work. LLM that is trained only on john steinbeck will not work at all. it simply does not have the generalised reasoning ability. it necessarily needs inputs from every source possible including programmi…

LLMs have the ability to convince you that they've "reasoned". sometimes, an application will loop the output of an LLM to its input to provide a "chain of reasoning"

This is not the same thing as reasoning.

LLMs are pattern matchers. If you trained an llm only to map some input to the output of John Steinbeck, then by golly that's what it'll be able to do. If you give it some input that isn't suitably like any of the input you gave it during training, then you'll get some unpredictable nonsense as output.

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

#140

Post by bigfishrunning »

Talanes wrote: post #88
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.

Now what if we ask the LLM to write about social media? Do you think the output would be similar to what you'd get if we had a time machine to bring the actual man back and have him form his own thoughts firsthand?

It may be stylistically similar, but it's impossible to predict what the content would be.
Post reply on HN