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

What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

slite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#101

Post by waynesonfire »

rcme wrote: post #17

I’ve been using AI to write with great success. Mostly business documents. My general process is this: Think of the concept I want to write about as well as the supporting evidence for the topic. Ask ChatGPT to write me something in my target format using the topic and supporting evidence as input. What I get back is essentially a well-written skeleton that I can use to fill in additional details. Finally, I pass my…

I have a similar workflow and love using chatgpt for this use-case. But, to highlight some issues, I found that writing some prompts took about as much time as just writing the document myself. I suppose it was less mental effort because I could be lazier knowing chatgpt would clean up the grammer.

You have to be rather precise with the prompt language to get the desired outcome.

Still, overall, it's an impressive capability.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#102

Post by melanieb421 »

sowbug wrote: post #90

I liked the post's title more than the article's contents. It got me wondering about the difference between language and thought, if there actually is any. Is thought just unspoken language? Do we think if we don't know a language? Is there a subset of any human language that can be described by a formal regular grammar without giving up the expressiveness of human language? Is there a notion of "Turing completeness"…

I wrote the article, and am personally extremely interested in this angle. What would happen to writing if we could directly transfer ideas without any kind of mediation? Would we need to "translate" at all? Would we still want to write for the beauty of it, and read for the meaning it adds to our lives?

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#103

Post by 1980phipsi »

mpalmer wrote: post #99
_Algernon_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that GPT is training future versions based on the information you provide. It could potentially be returned to a future user. AWS does no such thing.

Are you talking about the free to use ChatGPT application or the paid APIs? Very different things.

I don't know a lot about this. If you use a paid API, does that mean they promise not to use it for training?

Let's say I have a bunch Excel files and a bunch of accompany Word files (that are based on info from each Excel file, along with, to a lesser extent, information in the real world). Can I use the paid API to train on my data, and then when I provide it a new Excel file it can generate the accompanying text? And have them not use the information in them when generating results for other users.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#104

Post by melanieb421 »

karaterobot wrote: post #97

I don't really buy this argument. If clear writing is clear thinking, what is a complete disengagement from the process of writing equivalent to?

It's not a complete disengagement. Your brain is a processor, just like an NLP is. It takes in various inputs and rearranges them and makes connections. Taking in the input of your knowledge base as you write is not about replacing your thinking, it's about jogging your memory, stirring up your thoughts. It's like working with an editor, or pair-programming, or even just taking a walk to let things settle.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#105

Post by TeMPOraL »

Shaggy2000 wrote: post #80
_Algernon_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that GPT is training future versions based on the information you provide. It could potentially be returned to a future user. AWS does no such thing.

It's easy to replace terms with something else in order to keep information confidential.

It's also easy to forget about it. Or get complacent. Or not realize some of the things you didn't replace should have been.

But then, Grammarly managed to make a successful business out of a keylogger. And if you're working in a mid-to-large company and developing on Windows, chances are your corporate-mandated AV is sending every single binary you build to the AV company servers. And so on and so on. So I suppose this ship has already sailed, and you may just as well plug your company's Exchange server and Sharepoint to ChatGPT and see if it can generate your next PowerPoint presentation for you.

I always go out of my way to protect the information and IP I'm contractually obliged to protect, but it's getting increasingly hard these days. It's also very frustrating when you notice and report a new process that silently sends company IP to third parties to do $deity knows what with it, and you discover that instead of being concerned, the people you report your findings to don't care and don't understand why you're making a fuss out of it.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#106

Post by yakak »

sam0x17 wrote: post #96
moonchrome wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are providing sensitive business information/facts to a third party service that's likely going to use those for training, analysis, store it, etc. ? It should be fine for most places I guess - but I suspect a decent amount will have a problem with this. This is my main reservation about copilot as well (quality issues aside).

Fair, but if you're writing a communication where you care about wording, it's probably going to be public or semi-public anyway

Something internal that doesnt need to be understood can usually just not be written in the kinds of organizations I'm familiar with. Writing because something written is required is usually for the public, cross-organizational or government.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#107

Post by blackbear_ »

sowbug wrote: post #90

I liked the post's title more than the article's contents. It got me wondering about the difference between language and thought, if there actually is any. Is thought just unspoken language? Do we think if we don't know a language? Is there a subset of any human language that can be described by a formal regular grammar without giving up the expressiveness of human language? Is there a notion of "Turing completeness"…

> Is thought just unspoken language? Do we think if we don't know a language?

I find it pretty obvious that there are many ways of thinking that are not language, just consider abstract concepts in math and related fields. When working my way through math and programming problems, a large part of my thinking is not through words but.. Some kind of visualization?

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#108

Post by mpalmer »

1980phipsi wrote: post #103
mpalmer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about the free to use ChatGPT application or the paid APIs? Very different things.

I don't know a lot about this. If you use a paid API, does that mean they promise not to use it for training? Let's say I have a bunch Excel files and a bunch of accompany Word files (that are based on info from each Excel file, along with, to a lesser extent, information in the real world). Can I use the paid API to train on my data, and then when I provide it a new Excel file it can generate the accompanying text?…

I'm just responding to the parent's point about the disclaimer. That disclaimer is only shown to ChatGPT users.

I get the general impression, even on this site, that people seem to think that OpenAI'S sophisticated text generation capability is only possible through ChatGPT, which is not the case at all. It's just the only _free_ product.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#109

Post by alcoholic_byte »

NickC25 wrote: post #68

I think AI can make people better thinkers for sure! Look at what AlphaZero did for Chess - it basically showed that humanistic ideas can still thrive at the highest levels of computer chess (think like intentionally hanging a piece, dynamic positional play, trapping opposition pieces, sacrifices that don't pay off for several turns, etc...) rather than brute forcing a position. I'm sure the top players all learned q…

I don't know. With Chess, you have an antagonistic relationship. You are motivated to overcome the AI player.

With this ChatGPT non-sense it is symbiotic and we rely on the results gotten no matter how we got them. Or do you think calculators make you better at computations in your head or a better mathematician?

I think the problem I have with this headline is the tacit meaning of better. The results might be better yes, but YOU are not different.

I have spent years polishing my English, reading Orwell, Harpers, Lapham, Poe and others. I spent hours arguing about the minute differences of intricate grammatical structures. This is nothing an AI can help me with. It can only be gotten through a teacher and arguing, thinking and brooding over differences in the solitude of ones chambers, NOT by conversing with an AI that always delivers bespoken solutions as tasty morsels lacking the bitterness of labor as the underlying creation of the solution is lost.

Unlike with a teacher, it cannot be gotten from an AI either because the AI is a generator void of the deeper understanding of what is going on.

And the same can be said about thinking. Writing is nothing but a vociferated thought put on paper.

Re: What if AI didn't make you a bad writer, but a better thinker?

#110

Post by random_kris »

moonchrome wrote: post #21
rcme wrote: post #17

I’ve been using AI to write with great success. Mostly business documents. My general process is this: Think of the concept I want to write about as well as the supporting evidence for the topic. Ask ChatGPT to write me something in my target format using the topic and supporting evidence as input. What I get back is essentially a well-written skeleton that I can use to fill in additional details. Finally, I pass my…

So you are providing sensitive business information/facts to a third party service that's likely going to use those for training, analysis, store it, etc. ? It should be fine for most places I guess - but I suspect a decent amount will have a problem with this. This is my main reservation about copilot as well (quality issues aside).

I hope I never have to work at place like this
Post reply on HN