131–140 of 312 posts
Don't forget about Contrastive Negation : > Contrastive negation is a rhetorical structure that denies a specific idea in the first half of a sentence and asserts an alternative in the second half. > It typically follows an "It’s not X, it’s Y" or "not just X, but Y" formula. Wikipedia also has a great resource which covers many of the common LLM patterns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
Scrolling down a LinkedIn feed is hilarious at the moment. My favourite one today from today: “The tax isn't the problem. The mindset is.”
The LinkedIn Kool-Aid predates the advent of LLMs though.
> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.
I rarely write code, and only once for a living. But I feel like I’m a superhuman and one step away from being a zillionaire when Claude gives me a bunch of code it has written in seconds. I WILL CHANGE THE WORLD!!
And then I remember that Claude can’t write words that don’t make me want to break things and I’m good at writing words but bad at writing code.
So then I delete the code and go back to doing more profitable things than being the next zuckerfuck.
I wrote a skill for this! But I’m sure a lot of you have as well lol. For those curious https://github.com/ryanthedev/oberskills/blob/main/commands/...
sorta like asking an LLM to get more creative with a visual design, that also never works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "Why do we read?" but something related that is coming up a lot in my thinking lately is Walter J. Ong's "Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought".
Isn’t “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought” another way of saying that “feedback has an effect”? If so, this seems to be a trivial (still worthy) assertion. For example, I intend to, say, construct a shed. I make mistakes that I only see because I actually constructed. I revise future endeavours involving sheds. I admit to not having read this piece, and am merely reacting to the title. —- Okay, I…
- “(The) honest caveat:” (or “genuine caveat:”, both with the colon) - “(The) honest answer:” (again, with colon) - “The thing to internalize:” - “The smoking gun:” (really, sentences that start with “The :” are a strong tell, but those four are the most prolific) - “load bearing” (when not talking about architecture) - “blast radius” (when not talking about actual explosives, but rather the effect of an event/action…
just .
And it changes everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to play devil's advocate, who cares if it all looks generally the same? I grew up before everyone had dial-up, and I remember back then, when Web surfing on Netscape Navigator, all the websites also had a similar structure. Homogeneity in this context, to me, signals a design system that works best in the moment.
> who cares if it all looks generally the same? Maybe here lies the crux; for some of us, the web and by extension the internet is about expression and individuality in a way, but all together all accessible by everyone. Everything looking the same instead looks conformist, and ultimately boring, which I guess is what many of us don't want day after day. We want new ideas, presented by the person/group who came up wi…