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

Writing with LLM is not a shame

reflexions.florianernotte.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#141

Post by caconym_ »

viccis wrote: post #123
caconym_ wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. They show up in some of the best and most widely and intensely read prose that exists, with good reason. Of course, like any tool, they can be misused by people who don't know better.

You wanna cite any sources for that? I don't know of any prose that relies on crutch dashes

To make sure I wasn't posting out of my ass i opened Gravity's Rainbow to 4 or 5 random pages. All confirmed what I said above.

Maybe you should read more widely. It's good for the brain!

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#142

Post by handoflixue »

satisfice wrote: post #121
handoflixue wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Wow… that’s your counterargument? First you are confusing the passing of a test with the actual non-occurrence of crime. My point is that passing a test for counterfeit money doesn’t make passing counterfeit bills legally or morally acceptable. Your point is what? That the tests on $100 bills always work, or when they don’t work that’s okay? Surely you don’t mean that. I’m saying that I reject your AI-soaked fake wor…

Maybe this is clearer?

> 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 counterfeit, and subject it to stringent tests. Let’s say all the tests pass. Okay, given that it is indistinguishable from a legit $100 bill, is it therefore correct and ethical for me to spend this money?

This "hypothetical" happens thousands of times a day at any retail outlet that accepts cash" - the cashier is handed a $100 bill, they carefully inspect it, and if all the tests pass, they accept it as a legitimate bill.

A single additional $100 bill is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I have already accepted hundreds of them in my life time - why should I feel any ethical concerns about this?

So, yeah, when the tests don't work, that's okay? Or at least, it's not my problem. There's government agencies that deal with this, but the ethical issue is with the person making the bills and the obligation to act is on the government agencies. I have absolutely no obligation, and this is an established cornerstone of society.

Whatever supposed "hazard" you have in mind is one that society is already dealing with, on a regular basis, and... again: society has not collapsed simply because retail shops accept cash

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#144

Post by viccis »

caconym_ wrote: post #141
viccis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wanna cite any sources for that? I don't know of any prose that relies on crutch dashes

To make sure I wasn't posting out of my ass i opened Gravity's Rainbow to 4 or 5 random pages. All confirmed what I said above. Maybe you should read more widely. It's good for the brain!

>Gravity's Rainbow

>widely and intensely read prose

Dunno about that.

Pynchon's prose is notably colloquial, complete with lots of ellipses. Congrats on your Big Boy Book™ though.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#145

Post by CuriouslyC »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #139
CuriouslyC wrote: post #77

AI prose is mediocre right now. Too verbose, indirect constructions, passive, etc. That being said, it's actually a great editor and can pick out all those issues consistently. My workflow right now is to use AI for rough draft and developmental editing stages, then switch AI from changing files to leaving comments on files suggesting I change something. It is slower than letting it line/copyedit itself, but models d…

I've always used AI as an editor, which is to say I give it the my efforts and ask it to highlight mistakes. They invariably find a few. They occasionally miss a few too, so they aren't particularly reliable editors. They aren't reliable at anything I guess, but for English I have nothing else, and they are better than nothing. I do wish they would use a more effective way of highlighting their suggested changes, suc…

You can prompt AI to focus on writing prose that is optimized for impact and clarity, and its output is MUCH better.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#146

Post by AlecSchueler »

viccis wrote: post #144
caconym_ wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make sure I wasn't posting out of my ass i opened Gravity's Rainbow to 4 or 5 random pages. All confirmed what I said above. Maybe you should read more widely. It's good for the brain!

>Gravity's Rainbow >widely and intensely read prose Dunno about that. Pynchon's prose is notably colloquial, complete with lots of ellipses. Congrats on your Big Boy Book™ though.

This comment is really below the standards one might expect here, a total and hominem. Why don't you open one of your own big boy books and tell us which one it was that used no em dashes?

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#147

Post by caconym_ »

viccis wrote: post #144
caconym_ wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make sure I wasn't posting out of my ass i opened Gravity's Rainbow to 4 or 5 random pages. All confirmed what I said above. Maybe you should read more widely. It's good for the brain!

>Gravity's Rainbow >widely and intensely read prose Dunno about that. Pynchon's prose is notably colloquial, complete with lots of ellipses. Congrats on your Big Boy Book™ though.

It's just a book, man. Maybe you should read more widely; it might even cure you of the obscenely stupid opinion you've expressed here.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#148

Post by viccis »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #146
viccis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Gravity's Rainbow >widely and intensely read prose Dunno about that. Pynchon's prose is notably colloquial, complete with lots of ellipses. Congrats on your Big Boy Book™ though.

This comment is really below the standards one might expect here, a total and hominem. Why don't you open one of your own big boy books and tell us which one it was that used no em dashes?

Oh no I did a and hominem

My whole point was that opening "big boy books" doesn't actually make a point about the validity of a thing. That's just argumentum ad populum.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#149

Post by viccis »

caconym_ wrote: post #147
viccis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Gravity's Rainbow >widely and intensely read prose Dunno about that. Pynchon's prose is notably colloquial, complete with lots of ellipses. Congrats on your Big Boy Book™ though.

It's just a book, man. Maybe you should read more widely; it might even cure you of the obscenely stupid opinion you've expressed here.

I'm widely read. Enough that I'm not a pseud trying to imply that I read a lot of super duper hard books as evidence that my midwit opinion on emdashes is better than the guy here who made me mad by criticizing them.

Let me know if you're so stoked at reading Infinite Jest that you think that's proof I'm wrong.

Re: Writing with LLM is not a shame

#150

Post by caconym_ »

viccis wrote: post #149
caconym_ wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a book, man. Maybe you should read more widely; it might even cure you of the obscenely stupid opinion you've expressed here.

I'm widely read. Enough that I'm not a pseud trying to imply that I read a lot of super duper hard books as evidence that my midwit opinion on emdashes is better than the guy here who made me mad by criticizing them. Let me know if you're so stoked at reading Infinite Jest that you think that's proof I'm wrong.

You made this claim above:

> I don't know of any prose that relies on crutch dashes

If that's true then you are not widely read, and if it's false then you are a disingenuous troll and your comments here are exactly as worthless as they look. Either way your opinion is still bad. Sorry you're mad about it, but I'm done here.

Post reply on HN