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

171–180 of 214 posts

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

#171

Post by jacquesm »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #170
euroderf wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

Funnily enough FB already has the patent for this: using LLMs for "simulating the user when the user is absent from the social networking system, for example... if the user is deceased."

Oh, so they're not even hiding it. What is wrong with these people not to realize that this is way across the line?

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

#172

Post by Rohansi »

simianwords wrote: post #141
Rohansi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's relevant for data it hasn't been trained on. LLMs are trained to be all-knowing which is great as a utility but that does not come close to capturing an individual. If I trained (or, more likely, fine-tuned) an LLM to generate code like what's found in an individual's GitHub repositories, could you comfortably say it writes code the same way as that individual? Sure, it will capture style and conventions, but wh…

>If I trained (or, more likely, fine-tuned) an LLM to generate code like what's found in an individual's GitHub repositories, could you comfortably say it writes code the same way as that individual? Sure, it will capture style and conventions, but what about our limitations? What do you think happens if you fine-tune a model to write code like a frontend developer and ask it to write a simple operating system kernel…

> LLM's absolutely can reason on and conceptualise on things it has not been trained on, because of the generalised reasoning ability.

Yes, but how does that help it capture the nuances of an individual? It can try to infer but it will not have enough information to always be correct, where correctness is what the actual individual would do.

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

#173

Post by jsheard »

euroderf wrote: post #145
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.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

That's almost exactly the premise of a Black Mirror episode (S2E1 - Be Right Back) so you know it's going to get Torment Nexus'ed into existence.

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

#174

Post by mynameisvlad »

jacquesm wrote: post #150
mynameisvlad wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The beginning, middle and end.

So, in the interest of 'curious discourse' how would you suggest I should have written my comment so that it would be more professional, less snarky and less hostile? You see, the comment that I replied to made an assumption, that assumption is embedded in the word 'probably'. The person that wrote that presumes to know what I intend. I corrected that. Clarified it and moved on. If that seems hostile and snarky to yo…

> You probably mean necromancy.

You:

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

A less snarky and hostile version:

> I actually didn't! I specifically meant that they are fucking over the dead.

Pretty much the same content, and it makes you sound like you actually want to interact with other people. Even in your paragraph long explanation you do quite a few things that are just unnecessarily hostile. It's clearly just the way you talk, but it also doesn't mean you shouldn't work on improving it.

> For myself, I think the comment I replied to could have been phrased as a question rather than a statement.

Then you should have (politely) said it.

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

#175

Post by jacquesm »

jsheard wrote: post #173
euroderf wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

That's almost exactly the premise of a Black Mirror episode (S2E1 - Be Right Back ) so you know it's going to get Torment Nexus'ed into existence.

Suddenly 18 years of HN comments get a different vibe...

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

#176

Post by mynameisvlad »

dolebirchwood wrote: post #154
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.

He's not hostile; he's Dutch.

That's no excuse. Dutch people still have to communicate with others.

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

#177

Post by jacquesm »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #174
jacquesm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in the interest of 'curious discourse' how would you suggest I should have written my comment so that it would be more professional, less snarky and less hostile? You see, the comment that I replied to made an assumption, that assumption is embedded in the word 'probably'. The person that wrote that presumes to know what I intend. I corrected that. Clarified it and moved on. If that seems hostile and snarky to yo…

> You probably mean necromancy. You: > I probably did not. Then I would have written that. They are fucking over the dead. They are clearly not communicating with the dead. A less snarky and hostile version: > I actually didn't! I specifically meant that they are fucking over the dead. Pretty much the same content, and it makes you sound like you actually want to interact with other people. Even in your paragraph lon…

Thank you. I'm 60+ and I think I'm past saving, but I appreciate your effort to tone police HN.

As well as your own exemplary behavior:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46653114

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45505708

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45334298

And probably others besides.

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

#178

Post by thesuitonym »

pilooch wrote: post #115
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.!

There is an unimaginably large gulf of distance between an individual thinking about what an author would say about their writing, and a corporate entity selling the "opinion" of an LLM asked to act like someone.

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

#179

Post by thesuitonym »

latexr wrote: post #55
NewsaHackO wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about children or students? I think most people write because they want to communicate.

You’re not counting all the office workers who have to write reports or emails, or all the scammers who write those websites to manipulate SEO or show you ads.

If you fall into the camp of office workings needing to write reports or emails, maybe think twice about putting your name on AI garbage.

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

#180

Post by mold_aid »

mold_aid wrote: post #151
simianwords wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't buy this logic. if i have studied an author greatly i will be able to recognise patterns and be able to write like them. ex: i read a lot of shakespeare, understand patterns, understand where he came from, his biography and i will be able to write like him. why is it different for an LLM? i again don't get what the point is?

You are not able to write like Shakespeare. Shakespeare isn't really even a great example of an "author" per se. Like anybody else you could get away with: "well I read a lot of Bukowski and can do a passable imitation" or "I'm a Steinbeck scholar and here's a description of his style." But not Shakespeare. I get that you're into AI products and ok, fine. But no you have not "studied [Shakespeare] greatly" nor are yo…

>Literally nobody would know if the LLM was doing even a passable job of Truman >Capote-ing its way through their half-written attempt at NaNoWriMo

As I look back on my day, I find myself quite pleased with this line.

Post reply on HN