61–70 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nothing personal, if someone told me they’d generated a 15 page paper based on a two week LLM discussion I wouldn’t want to read it at all. My prior is that it would be the result of some sycophantic echo chamber that the LLM had reinforced. Edit: missed your insult in the first read, I wouldn’t have replied if I’d realized the first comment was in bad faith but will leave the above for posterity.
At any rate even if you wish to judge the idea rather than the way someone wrote it down then I still think LLMs don't help.
Because the one thing I definitely agree with, the bull of the effort behind putting an idea in writing isn't the act of writing itself.
Now though, it undercuts itself, because if the world is filled with authors using AI to express their interesting thoughts, then how come--this post included--it's always the same regurgitation and bloviation?
We know by now--have had countless examples--that people using AI to produce text do not care for the quality of that text. It's a path-of-least-resistance tool, and that's what people use it for.
>I don’t care whether you wrote every word with your bare hands. I care whether the thought is yours, whether you exercised judgment, whether the result deserves my attention and whether you’ll stand behind it once it leaves your screen. Alright, compare the following degrees of autonomy: - I wrote it, made sure everything's correct, let the LLM proofread it/translate it to English, and checked it afterwards - I had…
Those issues existed well before LLMs. Everyone who reads needs a BS detector. It's unfortunate, though, that many such detectors have been replaced with AI detectors.
I once had a scriptures class where I had to hit word count on an essay and replaced every instance of “Jesus” with “Jesus the only begotten Son of God who died on the cross so that we may be saved from our sins”. So, yes, humans can also expand text in a mechanical way. I just don’t want to read expanded text. So really the question is “is this text expanded?”. Pre-LLM very little was. Post-LLM much is and has certa…
Hmm. Expanded text. You have just explained why I hate the writing style of the New Yorker. And when you put it that way, it makes me think of steganography. That's a form of "expanding" the text, and it seems like it might be a useful way to think about the problem. Somewhere hidden in that wall of text is an actual message... but I don't want to have to go find it.
I like this “steganography” interpretation.
Low grade engagement bait that reads like a mediocre attempt at whitewashing slop. If the author's premise holds then we're saying that there's no daylight between the works of an individual who has taken a literal lifetime to hone a skillset and any random dilletante armed with the appropriate AI tools.
Well, the promise of AGI and current LLM trajectory looks like this is how it's going to be. This is part of the reason that juniors or university students feel animosity towards LLMs.
Have you looked at the recent prompts mathematicians use to disprove conjectures? One of the last ones related to graph theory was basically: continue research...enough partial results, give me a breakthrough...
Not exactly skillful prompting...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If you’re working on it for 2 weeks, why not just write it yourself (perhaps chatting with an AI on the side to develop your thoughts)?
>I don’t care whether you wrote every word with your bare hands. I care whether the thought is yours, whether you exercised judgment, whether the result deserves my attention and whether you’ll stand behind it once it leaves your screen. Alright, compare the following degrees of autonomy: - I wrote it, made sure everything's correct, let the LLM proofread it/translate it to English, and checked it afterwards - I had…
Completely apart from that, I also hate posts that look like a 15-year-old on /r/thisisdeep, whether or not they used an LLM to wrap a lot of words around their absence-of-much-of-an-idea.
So I can hate posts on more than one axis. I hate the lack of decent writing, and I hate the lack of decent thinking.
I can make an exception for LLM translation, if the thinking is good. Even if the writing isn't perfect, it's better than LLM-generated-from-a-prompt text, because it has something with a real voice to start from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those issues existed well before LLMs. Everyone who reads needs a BS detector. It's unfortunate, though, that many such detectors have been replaced with AI detectors.
Part of the problem is that there’s far more BS now.
Pangram found the breaks properly too.