[dead]
Writing with LLM is not a shame
101–110 of 155 posts
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#102Writing with LLM is also not writing. In some abstract sense, it may be plagiarism. In another sense, you're robbing yourself of one of the most crucial parts of writing: improved cognition. Anyone who edits voice transcripts knows just how much a normal person wanders, pauses, misspeaks, etc when talking. The act of writing forces you to refine thoughts you would not have otherwise had.
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face. That’s the rudeness. But this takes care of itself— we just adjust trust accordingly
> But this takes care of itself— we just adjust trust accordingly This should be viewed as an absolute unacceptable outcome I want society to become higher trust not even lower trust :(
first, tell the tide to stop coming in.
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#104Just got a few recommendations by my colleagues on LinkedIn that were clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. But then again, the message was tuned to specific things I did. Also they were from Eastern Europe, so I imagine they just fixed their input. If you call yourself a writer, having tell tale LLM signs is bad. But for people who's work doesn't involve having a personal voice in written lang…
you'll have to get my en/em dashes out of my cold dead fingers.
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#105When I put real time and thought into an email—and the response I get back is obviously AI-generated—and it comes with no disclaimer—it infuriates me. Maybe the model happened to spit out exactly what the sender meant—just dressed up and grammatically polished. Doesn’t matter—I’d rather someone talk to me directly than funnel a thought through a word-grinder and hit send. Downvote me—call me anti-progress—I don’t car…
I don't understand what people get from using a chatbot to write correspondence. It saves no time, and just ends up being long winded nonsense.
My stance is that if you're about to ask co-pilot, or whatever, to respond to me, then just send me the prompt you're about to enter as that will probably answer the question!
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#106I think it's fair to use AI as an editor, to get feedback about how your ideas are packaged. It's also fair to use it as a clever dictionary, to find the right expressions, or to use correct grammar and spelling. (This post could really use a round of corrections.) But in the end, the message and the reasoning should be yours, and any facts that come from the LLM should be verified. Expecting people to read unverifie…
> Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude. Quite. Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face. Even if you're using it as an editor... you know that editors vary in quality, right? You wouldn't accept a random editor just because they're cheap or free. Prose has a lot in it, not just syntax, spelling an…
> ...why should anyone else care or waste their time on it?
Sometimes we (I) might follow ideas over authority/authorship. e.g.: I'll happily read ai generated stuff all day long on topics I'm super into.
Do I have to be the instigator? Can someone else prompt/filter/etc. for me? I think so. They'll do it differently and perhaps better than me.
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> clearly written by an LLM, the long emdash was even present. Can we please stop propagating this accusation? Alright, sure, maybe LLMs overuse the em-dash, but it is a valid topographical mark which was in use way before LLMs and is even auto-inserted by default by popular software on popular operating systems— it is never sufficient on its own to identify LLM use (and yes, I just used it—multiple times—on purpose…
So do you always put in the ALT+ incantation to get an emdash or copy&paste? I feel the emdash is a tell because you have to go out of your way to use it on a computer keyboard. Something anyone other than the most dedicated punctuation geeks won't do for a random message on the internet. Things are different for typeset books.
no I use -- and ---. not all of us use Microsoft word for serious writing.
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the tool does the task for you, then you didnt do the task. I don't keep my food cold, my refrigerator does. I just turned it on. This doesn't matter unless I am for some reason pretending I myself am keeping my food cold somehow, and then that becomes a lie. When a tool blurs the line between who performed the task, and you take full credit despite being assisted, that is deceitful. Spell checking helps us all pr…
I like the distinction between syntactic tools, like spellcheck, and semantic tools, like AI. The former clearly doesn't impugn the author, the latter does. They seem clearly and fundamentally different to me.
Where do you put the line? What do you do with the ambiguous categories?
Clearly a trucker does not "deliver goods" and a Taxi Driver is not in the business of ferrying passengers - the vehicle does all of that, right?
Writers these days rarely bother with the actual act of writing now that we have typing.
I've rarely heard a musician, but I've heard lots of CDs and they're really quite good - much cheaper than musicians, too.
Is my camera an artist, or is it just plagiarizing the landscape and architecture?
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#109The author of this piece commits a common mistake: analyzing AI use as if communication is nothing more than an isolated transaction. Instead communication is usually a process of creating and maintaining a relationship of some kind with other people. Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine if I handed you a $100 bill and asked you to examine it carefully. Is it real money? Perhaps you immediately suspect it is counterf…
Every day cashiers accept $100 bills on the basis that they pass the counterfeit tests, and every day society has failed to collapse from what you posit is a "hazard to the social contract"
Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the distinction between syntactic tools, like spellcheck, and semantic tools, like AI. The former clearly doesn't impugn the author, the latter does. They seem clearly and fundamentally different to me.
Where do you put the line? What do you do with the ambiguous categories? Clearly a trucker does not "deliver goods" and a Taxi Driver is not in the business of ferrying passengers - the vehicle does all of that, right? Writers these days rarely bother with the actual act of writing now that we have typing. I've rarely heard a musician, but I've heard lots of CDs and they're really quite good - much cheaper than music…
I'm not sure it makes sense to assume the creative act of a person writing to other people, which is fundamentally about a consciousness communicating to others, is anything like delivering goods.
The distinction I pointed out, applied to people producing writing intended for other people to read, seems to give a really clear "line". Syntactic tools, you're still fully producing the writing, semantic tools, you're not. You can find some small amount of blurriness if you really want, like does using a thesaurus count as semantic, but it seems disingenuous to pretend that has even close to the same impact on the authorship of the piece as using AI.