131–140 of 265 posts
Writing (unassisted) is probably the first step towards your own independent thoughts. I'm reminded of that scene in "Ghost in the Shell" where some guy ask the Major why he is on the team (full of cyborgs) and she responds something along the line of "Because you are basically un-enhanced (maybe without a ghost?) and are likely to respond differently then the rest of us; Overspecialization is death." I think a diver…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't get what you're saying. If you possess enough information to accurately judge the LLM's suggestions you possess enough information to decide on your own. There's not really a way around that.
Of course I'm deciding on my own, I'm not letting the LLM decide for me (although some people do). But the point is whatever the suggestion is is merely an implementation detail that either solves my problem or not, not sure what part of that is confusing. Replace LLM with glorified Google and maybe it's less confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm finding AI great to have a conversation with to flesh out ideas, with the added benefit it can summarize everything at the end
You're being steered without being aware of it.
I talk to other people. They influence me, steer me. I am okay with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course I'm deciding on my own, I'm not letting the LLM decide for me (although some people do). But the point is whatever the suggestion is is merely an implementation detail that either solves my problem or not, not sure what part of that is confusing. Replace LLM with glorified Google and maybe it's less confusing.
No, Google (at least back when it worked) ranked results based on the feedback of other users, so it was a useful signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not eliminating toil, it's externalizing it from the writer to the reader. If writing something is too tedious for you, at least respect my time as the reader enough to just give me the prompt you used rather than the output.
In a lot of my AI assisted writing, the prompt is an order of magnitude larger than the output. Prompt: here are 5 websites, 3 articles I wrote, 7 semi-relevant markdown notes, the invitation for the lecture I'm giving, a description of the intended audience, and my personal plan and outline. Output: draft of a lecture And then the review, the iteration, feedback loops. The result is thoroughly a collaboration betwee…
Writing (unassisted) is probably the first step towards your own independent thoughts. I'm reminded of that scene in "Ghost in the Shell" where some guy ask the Major why he is on the team (full of cyborgs) and she responds something along the line of "Because you are basically un-enhanced (maybe without a ghost?) and are likely to respond differently then the rest of us; Overspecialization is death." I think a diver…
Either we find some way to filter out AI slop or the internet just stops getting used to post and consume content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you drop the premise of writing, drop the premise that you need something well written. Just give me the same information you would have given the LLM.
But a non well-written prompt is not a good prompt. What are you really going to do with a shit prompt? It's meta: we need better writers all the way down.
If you really feel the need, you can attach the LLM output as an appendix. I probably won't read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What better solution do you have in mind? This scenario is AI being used as a tool to eliminate toil. It’s not replacing human creativity, or anything like that. If you have a problem with that, then you should also have a problem with computers in general. But maybe you do have a problem with computers - after all, they regularly eliminate jobs, for example. In that case, AI is only special in its potentially greate…
It's not eliminating toil, it's externalizing it from the writer to the reader. If writing something is too tedious for you, at least respect my time as the reader enough to just give me the prompt you used rather than the output.
> When I send somebody a document that whiffs of LLM, I’m only demonstrating that the LLM produced something approximating what others want to hear. I’m not showing that I contended with the ideas. This eloquently states the problem with sending LLM content to other people: As soon as they catch on that you're giving them LLM writing, it changes the dynamic of the relationship entirely. Now you're not asking them to…
Lots of people want to use LLMs to produce things and nobody wants to consume the things LLMs produce. The market-clearing solution is to have some mechanism by which the producers pay the rest of us to consume the products. Whoever comes up with that framework will probably do very well.
Writing (unassisted) is probably the first step towards your own independent thoughts. I'm reminded of that scene in "Ghost in the Shell" where some guy ask the Major why he is on the team (full of cyborgs) and she responds something along the line of "Because you are basically un-enhanced (maybe without a ghost?) and are likely to respond differently then the rest of us; Overspecialization is death." I think a diver…
I think LLM writing is probably a short term fad. It doesn't provide any value and no one likes reading it. That said, anywhere where value can be extracted by posting writing will be completely destroyed by LLMs as people try to grift their way in. Either we find some way to filter out AI slop or the internet just stops getting used to post and consume content.