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

Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 214 posts

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#161

Post by simianwords »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #160
simianwords wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

false, chess ELO is pretty good https://maxim-saplin.github.io/llm_chess/ ets not cherry pick and actually see benchmarks please. i would say even ~1000 elo means that it can reason better than the average human.

If you look at the "workflow" section of that page, they had to add a bunch of scaffolding around telling the model what moves are legal -- an llm can't keep enough context to know how to play chess; only to choose an advantageous move from a given list. But feel free to "cherry pick".

why do you think this falsifies that it can't reason?

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#162

Post by sensanaty »

euroderf wrote: post #145
jacquesm wrote: post #110

Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

They already have a feature where a profile can be marked as a memorial page or some such thing, I don't think this is so far fetched considering how ghoulish that robot Zucc is.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#164

Post by NuclearPM »

latexr wrote: post #66
simianwords wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you provide a single example now with gpt 5.4 thinking that makes up things in steps? lets try to reproduce it.

I’m pretty sure you can think of one yourself, I’m not going to play this game. Now it’s 5.4 Thinking, before that it was 5.3, before that 5.2, 5.1, 5, before that it was 4… At every stage there’s someone saying “oh, the previous model doesn’t matter, the current one is where it’s at”. And when it’s shown the current model can’t do something, there’s always some other excuse. It’s a profoundly bad faith argument, the…

Caught and gamed? What do you mean?

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#165

Post by tovej »

simianwords wrote: post #134
tovej wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, what I said should be falsifiable. The burden is on you to give me an example, but I can give you an idea. You need to show me an LLM applying writing techniques do not have examples in its corpus. You would have to use some relatively unknown author, I can suggest Iida Turpeinen. There will be interviews of her describing her writing technique, but no examples that aren't from Elolliset (Beasts of the sea). Fin…

>You need to show me an LLM applying writing techniques do not have examples in its corpus. why are you bringing this constraint?

Because the entire point is the LLM cannot understand text about text.

If someone has already done the work of giving an example of how to produce text according to a process, we have no way of knowing if the LLM has followed the process or copied the existing example.

And my point of course is that copying examples is the only way that LLMs can produce text. If you use an author who has been so analyzed to death that there are hundreds of examples of how to write like them, say, Hemingway, then that would not prove anything, because the LLM will just copy some existing "exercise in writing like Hemingway".

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#166

Post by Rohansi »

esafak wrote: post #109
Rohansi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's relevant for data it hasn't been trained on. LLMs are trained to be all-knowing which is great as a utility but that does not come close to capturing an individual. If I trained (or, more likely, fine-tuned) an LLM to generate code like what's found in an individual's GitHub repositories, could you comfortably say it writes code the same way as that individual? Sure, it will capture style and conventions, but wh…

I don't know if LLMs are trained to imitate sources like that. I also don't know what would happen if you asked it to do something like someone who does not know how to do it. Would they refuse, make mistakes, or assume the person can learn? Humans can do all three, so barring more specific instructions any such response is reasonable.

> Humans can do all three, so barring more specific instructions any such response is reasonable.

Of course, but reasonable behavior across all humans is not the same as what one specific human would do. An individual, depending on the scenario, might stick to a specific choice because of their personality etc. which is not always explained, and heavily summarized if it is.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#168

Post by z3c0 »

abirch wrote: post #118
nxobject wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depressingly enough, if Grammarly does throw in the hat, we'll lose an application of clear utility that could be run entirely locally.

It seems like there are many apps that can be run locally that use LLMs. Although I haven't used this, I found it on reddit and it's made by a student. https://github.com/theJayTea/WritingTools Seems like there could be others that are better.

I believe the person you're replying to meant local inferencing. The tool you shared, like most (all?) LLM utilities, is wrapping API calls.

https://github.com/theJayTea/WritingTools/blob/main/Windows_...

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#169

Post by nxobject »

abirch wrote: post #118
nxobject wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depressingly enough, if Grammarly does throw in the hat, we'll lose an application of clear utility that could be run entirely locally.

It seems like there are many apps that can be run locally that use LLMs. Although I haven't used this, I found it on reddit and it's made by a student. https://github.com/theJayTea/WritingTools Seems like there could be others that are better.

IIRC, I think the core of Grammarly is a CL-based pattern-matching system, so it may be even simpler than that.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#170

Post by Rebelgecko »

euroderf wrote: post #145
jacquesm wrote: post #110

Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

Funnily enough FB already has the patent for this: using LLMs for "simulating the user when the user is absent from the social networking system, for example... if the user is deceased."
Post reply on HN