Allow me to get to know you, mistakes and all

171–172 of 172 posts

Re: Allow me to get to know you, mistakes and all

#171

Post by santamex » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

latexr wrote: post #168

santamex wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really love my job and I much more love helping people with the work I do. I also much more prefer talking to people directly than writing emails answering, but it is still part of what I do, when you are an expert at something you want to share and multiply this expertise. You can write it down in a book, or at corporations you write documentation, but people prefer contacting someone, because they have always som…

That’s a long answer you copied and pasted between two comments. Yet it didn’t address the points in either. Was an LLM involved in writing that response? If a couple of hundred people in your organisation contact you regularly to ask about procedures, you have a serious documentation problem. If it exists, it will be subpar and/or insufficient. Better someone realises that before you leave and everyone is left hangi…

You are right. I copied the reply because I wanted to share my point of view to both of you who had very similar point. A llm would have rewritten my first comment to you and adepted it to the slightly different other one. I think nether of you asked a question, but I can assure you no llm was involved in writing this. You are also right about the documentation issue, docs are a mess, often outdated or very vage to generalize, but not specific enough for individual manufacture specific processes or any other, to many edge cases when you work with >700 suppliers where processes often change from one quarter to another. So experience is all, hard to document but nice to share with an llm with the right context and my addition, because it can adept this quickly to the colleagues request. And yes solving the doc issues is part of the goal.

Re: Allow me to get to know you, mistakes and all

#172

Post by moondance » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 12:42 AM UTC

goodmythical wrote: post #126

moondance wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate to the inclination, but so many new insights and moments of inspiration are necessarily confined to that painstaking iterative line-by-line process of real writing. When you are simply prompting and editing, you will fill the page (and it might even sound like “you”), but you will not have that delightful experience of encountering something unexpected along the way to filling it.

>but you will not have that delightful experience of encountering something unexpected along the way to filling it. I feel like you haven't used LLMs very extensively if that is your genuine experience with LLMs. Without even tuning the heat to a higher setting, a wide range of LLMs have offered me unique content that I had not encountered previously and certainly was not expecting.

I’ve spent more than enough time writing with LLMs.

“Encountering” is actually a very apt description of the “ah-ha moments” of AI assisted writing, so that was the wrong word for the point I was making.

The joy of traditional writing is that those “ah-ha moments” come from somewhere in you. And I’m not arguing that is preferable out of some sort of anti-AI moralism. Rather, the epiphanies of traditional writing are better because they are informed by your singular experience, the life you have lived, the connections you have made, and all you have gathered along the way. I’m saying that it’s a great disservice not only to a given piece of writing, but to writing as a whole, when those influences are not present to guide the first drafts of the world. Follow the branching paths of your own inspiration to the conclusion, then let the machine take a pass at it. To give it the first crack is to rob your work of the stuff that makes it uniquely yours, and to rob yourself of the experience of invention.

Post reply on HN