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

201–210 of 214 posts

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

#201

Post by tovej »

simianwords wrote: post #183
tovej wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the entire point is the LLM cannot understand text about text. If someone has already done the work of giving an example of how to produce text according to a process, we have no way of knowing if the LLM has followed the process or copied the existing example. And my point of course is that copying examples is the only way that LLMs can produce text. If you use an author who has been so analyzed to death tha…

>Because the entire point is the LLM cannot understand text about text. you have asked for an LLM to read a single interview and produce text that sounds similar to the author based on the techniques on that single interview. https://claude.ai/share/cec7b1e5-0213-4548-887f-c31653a6ad67 here is the attempt. i don't think i could have done much better.

There is no actual short story behind the link? moon_landing_turpeinen.md cannot be opened.

You could not have done better? Love it. You didn't even bother rewriting my post before pasting it into the box. The post isn't addressed as a prompt, it's my giving you the requirements of what to prompt.

Also, because you did that, you've actually provided evidence for my argument: notice that my attitudes about LLMs are reflected in the LLM output. E.g.:

  "Now — the honest problem the challenge identifies: I'm reconstructing a description of a style, not internalizing the rhythm and texture of actual prose. A human who's read the book would have absorbed cadences, sentence lengths, paragraph structures, the specific ratio of concrete detail to abstraction — all the things that live below the level of "technique described in interviews.""
That's precisely because it can't separate metatext from text. It's just copying the vibe of what I'm saying, instead of understanding the message behind the text and trying to apply it. It also hallucinates somewhat here, because it's argument is about humans absorbing the text rather than the metatext. But that's also to be expected from a syntax-level tool like an LLM.

The end result is... nothing. You failed the task and you ended up supporting my point. But I appreciate that you took the time to do this experiment.

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

#202

Post by AlexeyBelov »

jacquesm wrote: post #177
mynameisvlad wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As an outside observer: mynameisvlad is right, and even provided a better variation of your comment _which you requested_. To me this is an OK criticism, I'd like to see more of this on HN. Then you've thrown everythign in the trash, essentially, and started digging through their comment history. Their comment wasn't even under discussion. I'd like to see less of this on HN.

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

#203

Post by simianwords »

tovej wrote: post #201
simianwords wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because the entire point is the LLM cannot understand text about text. you have asked for an LLM to read a single interview and produce text that sounds similar to the author based on the techniques on that single interview. https://claude.ai/share/cec7b1e5-0213-4548-887f-c31653a6ad67 here is the attempt. i don't think i could have done much better.

There is no actual short story behind the link? moon_landing_turpeinen.md cannot be opened. You could not have done better? Love it. You didn't even bother rewriting my post before pasting it into the box. The post isn't addressed as a prompt, it's my giving you the requirements of what to prompt. Also, because you did that, you've actually provided evidence for my argument: notice that my attitudes about LLMs are re…

my bad, apprently claude doesn't share the Md. here it is https://pastebin.com/LPW6QsLE

> "Now — the honest problem the challenge identifies: I'm reconstructing a description of a style, not internalizing the rhythm and texture of actual prose. A human who's read the book would have absorbed cadences, sentence lengths, paragraph structures, the specific ratio of concrete detail to abstraction — all the things that live below the level of "technique described in interviews.

a human would have to read all the text, so would an LLM but you have not allowed this from your previous constraint. then allow an LLM to reproduce something that is in its training set?

why do you expect an LLM to achieve something that even a human can't do?

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

#204

Post by bonoboTP »

contagiousflow wrote: post #101
bonoboTP wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great. Now that fancy writing is cheap and infinite, fields whose entire scholarship value was in obscurantist jargon bending have to actually start to turn on their brains and care about making more sense than an LLM can.

What fields rely only on jargon manipulation to produce papers?

I would think that most people can think of some. Maybe those who can't are part of one.

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

#205

Post by RobRivera »

simianwords wrote: post #193
RobRivera wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually pretty convinced they're a troll or at the very least a high confrontation participant who is quick to move goal posts, ignore entire chains of logic, engage in ad hominim attacks of other posters, and is bringing zero novel insight anywhere in this thread

one of the posters said it can't even reason through chess, i ran the actual benchmark, spent money and actually proved that it can beat a 1000 elo chess engine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47316787 does this show i'm a troll? throughout this thread there has been misinformation that i have been dispelling. what you are doing is ad hominem. here's another post where i ran the prompt that the person asked whi…

What do you do for work?

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

#206

Post by dwb »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #188
dwb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It changes the meaning significantly. An LLM has very little in common with a human student.

How so? I see lots of similarities both in the training and inference/prompting stages.

There are some similarities, but they are absolutely overwhelmed by the differences. Having a handful of superficial similarities is not enough to make draw a meaningful comparison. The act of teaching a human is very different from “training” an LLM because humans have the power of the whole brain and body, not just some information-integration part that the brain and LLMs may (or may not) share. Humans can be creative in ways that LLMs manifestly can’t be. Humans can act like mere token predictors, but we can (and routinely do) also transcend that, question it, play with it. LLMs can’t.

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

#207

Post by Ferret7446 »

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.

What objection? IANAL but offering something "inspired by" is fair use. We have not yet reached a point where you can get a government sanctioned monopoly for your writing style or personality.

Unless they're outright marketing this as "endorsed by" or similar, there is no case.

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

#208

Post by weird-eye-issue »

dwb wrote: post #206
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? I see lots of similarities both in the training and inference/prompting stages.

There are some similarities, but they are absolutely overwhelmed by the differences. Having a handful of superficial similarities is not enough to make draw a meaningful comparison. The act of teaching a human is very different from “training” an LLM because humans have the power of the whole brain and body, not just some information-integration part that the brain and LLMs may (or may not) share. Humans can be creat…

> but we can (and routinely do) also transcend that, question it, play with it. LLMs can’t.

Maybe not in a single inference, but you can have an LLM question itself by running another inference using its previous prompt as input. You can easily see this in a deep research agent loop where it might find some data and then it goes to find other data to back that up but then finds that it was actually incorrect and then it changes its mind

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

#209

Post by tovej »

simianwords wrote: post #203
tovej wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no actual short story behind the link? moon_landing_turpeinen.md cannot be opened. You could not have done better? Love it. You didn't even bother rewriting my post before pasting it into the box. The post isn't addressed as a prompt, it's my giving you the requirements of what to prompt. Also, because you did that, you've actually provided evidence for my argument: notice that my attitudes about LLMs are re…

my bad, apprently claude doesn't share the Md. here it is https://pastebin.com/LPW6QsLE > "Now — the honest problem the challenge identifies: I'm reconstructing a description of a style, not internalizing the rhythm and texture of actual prose. A human who's read the book would have absorbed cadences, sentence lengths, paragraph structures, the specific ratio of concrete detail to abstraction — all the things that li…

Why are you taking the LLM-hallucinated version of the argument as truth? I even clearly stated how the LLM-version of my claim is a misunderstood version of the argument.

Do you remember the point we're arguing? That a human can understand text about a way of writing, and apply that information to the _process_ of writing (not the output).

If you admit the LLM can't do this, then you are conceding the point.

I don't know why you're claiming that humans can't do this when we very clearly can.

An illustrative example: I could describe a new way of rhyming to a human without an example, and they could produce a rhyme without an example. However describing this new rhyming scheme to an LLM without examples would not yield any results. (Rhyming is a bad example to test, however, because the LLM corpi have plenty of examples).

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

#210

Post by contagiousflow »

bonoboTP wrote: post #204
contagiousflow wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What fields rely only on jargon manipulation to produce papers?

I would think that most people can think of some. Maybe those who can't are part of one.

That's a beautiful Kafkatrap you've constructed. Not much of an argument though. Maybe there's another explanation for this though. Perhaps you think you know much more about different fields than you actually do?
Post reply on HN