Live data from Hacker News

The safest job from AI may be writing

muratbuffalo.blogspot.com

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#51

I think it's likely to be lawyers who are the safest. Lawyers are the ones primarily in charge of the government, and I think it's likely that as soon as they feel like the legal profession is threatened, they will pass laws making it illegal to use AI for legal issues. It's not all sunshine and roses (paralegals are probably hosed), but the lawyers seem like they'll do ok.

Unless the model watermarks text, it will become increasingly difficult to tell the difference between human legalese and AI legalese. Especially if they make it illegal, that will create a strong incentive to find-tune to imitate human lawyers more convincingly.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#52
post #37

The real thing being said here is that the author can tell good writing from bad, and assumes everyone can... I'm a visual artist and at generative art is blindingly obvious.... To me.... But not to many folks around me! Including a few artists and art adjacent folks.

LLM prose has degraded with each model update, the models are now being RL'd into wall of texts that only makes sense to other agents. I think its going to become more obvious as we move forward that is llm generated because labs seem to only be focused on tool-calling/agentic-coding environments, as that's the only thing that drives revenue. There may come players who focus on models that are good at writing for tec…

Yeah, this tracks with my experiments. About every 6 months or so for the past year-and-a-half I've tried using the "frontier" LLMs to as-near-as-possible autonomously write novel length stories, because I find it fascinating.

When I had Gemini 2.5 write a novel, it wasn't really objectively "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but while the prose was very purple and full of cliches and, well, bad writing I guess, it still felt ... subjectively good, at least for what it was.

Last week I did a run with GPT-5.6, and wow. On the one hand, it managed to produce 110,000 words that were "shockingly" coherent. The model was able to maintain state and plot lines and background details extremely well, much better than older models.

But I just don't like the prose. I haven't really liked _any_ prose that GPT-5.6 produces. It's significantly better at "instruction following" and keeping track of things, but, wow.

> “The sequence is consistent with their voluntary choices.” Mara enlarged the uncertainty field rather than the result. “It does not prove what happened to anyone we can’t observe. It does not prove contact did this. And it does not turn the Shard into treatment.”

GPT-5.6 in particular becomes so fixated on certain ideas like "consent" and epistemology, that by the end of the narrative, the prose and dialogue are all just "agent speech", despite the prompt/harness specifying that it's a _novel_ with narrative prose and such.

Interestingly, the model itself produces an accurate critique of its own output:

> The draft has become a *consent-centered medical, legal, and logistical procedural*. The important drift is therefore not that many events were omitted. It is that the retained events now prove a different thesis.

Which begs the question of if it would do better with a couple rounds of output -> critique -> revision. But I think I've had enough LLM prose for a bit...

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#53
I appreciate what this piece is trying to do directionally but it shares a logical flaw with lots of other pieces about AI and knowledge work. It assumes that in order to disrupt a particular field, AI needs to print serviceable work unassisted; that it's "vibe-shipping".

AI today is most effective when it's not vibing, but rather copiloting a skilled operator. I don't necessarily want my agent to build an entire system for me, even if it's ultimately the author of almost every line of code; I'm actively making decisions throughout. There's obviously a spectrum here but at most points on the spectrum the amount of assistance available is still a step change in the economics.

So too with writing.

The first rule of accelerating writing with AI is that you're not allowed to use a single word the AI suggests. Even if what the model comes up with is great, better than what you could have done, as soon as the AI suggests it it's poisoned. At least with current models, readers can detect LLM prose in the parts per trillion, and as soon as they do you've lost them.

The second rule of writing with AI is that AI encouragement is toxic. A structural consequence of RL is that models are exquisitely tuned to generate responses that make their users perceive value. We recognize this in a gross sense in "sycophancy", but the problem recurs fractally in at finer-grained levels, where stuff like "this part is really strong" will subtly allow the model to set a course for your writing and you'll confidently ship crap.

With those two rules in mind, models are incredibly valuable for writing, more valuable in my experience than the professional copywriters I've worked with. The trick is to get them to make suggestions at a higher level than just writing alternatives:

* Do the sentences in these paragraphs end with the new idea or information?

* Are the real actors in each sentence the grammatical subjects?

* From paragraph to paragraph is there a clear flow of topics, or are things jumping around?

* Is this piece crudded up with metadiscourse like "it's important to note"?

I've had a stack of notecards for ages that I took down from Joseph Williams "Style: Towards Clarity And Grace", the most programmer-brained writing book ever written, I love it very much. For the past year or so I've been feeding them through GPT and Claude one by one, and it's drastically increased the speed at which I can knock out a completed piece.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that AI isn't going to have an impact on the writing profession. It's just not the most obvious impact everyone assumes it will have, where it, like, writes whole op-eds or whatever. At least not yet.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#54
post #49
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the ChatGPT moment for humanoid robotics is coming within a year or two.

> The ChatGPT moment for humanoid robotics is coming within a year or two. How long after that moment did the ChatGPT robots need to invent the time travel machine which let you come back to 2026 to confidently claim this?

Edited to say "I think". I think that because I have been looking hard for developments in humanoid robotics generalization and new impressive demos and capabilities keep popping up all the time.

For example the recent Skild AI fairly general imitation capability. It really is a huge amount of effort on increasing the generality of humanoid robots going on now and a lot of demonstrations coming out showing off progress.

With the current trajectory there is no reason to think it will stop soon. There is a lot of motivation to innovate and train and it is pushing things forward.

If you're not looking for evidence of improvement, or rather looking for failure cases, then you're not going to see that trajectory.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#55
post #27

The safest jobs are the ones that can't be done behind a screen. I'm a technician and there's no robot that could replace me and there won't be for a long time.

I think the ChatGPT moment for humanoid robotics is coming within a year or two.

When a robot can figure out how to contort it's body to climb inside a machine to replace an encoder, I'll start to worry.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#56

I don't think there's any chance people will be employed to sell the output of their brains in 20 years, outside of "athletes", or whatever we end up calling people who think for sport. We mostly succeeded at doing this with muscles, and today there's no market for hauling rocks out of quarries manually. We're in the process of doing that for brains too. AI will outdo people in all practical uses. We're already there…

There will always be creative superstars.

Of course. But they're going to be machines. I don't think there's magic that makes the human brain impossible to automate. And engineering is going to lead to faster improvements than evolution could.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#57
Mmm, I doubt it.

I have a weird background (product, development, writing + devrel). I write a lot of code and a lot of articles.

I think there is a lot of overlap in how people who write code or articles (documentation, books, etc.) use AI. On one side of the spectrum, you have people who just blindly input some prompt, accept the output and move on with their lives. You can likely predict how that is going for them (not great). On the other side of the spectrum, you have people who outright reject all AI and are continuing to plod on with how they have always done things.

In the center is a more reasonable approach that leverages AI to create without blindly accepting the output. This applies very much to writing.

The workflow that I've adopted over the past two years or so has been to leverage AI to help with the research and outline process. Once I'm happy with the structure I go and I write what I need to write.

This maps pretty closely to the code that I write. It's fine.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#58
Yeah I had GPT5.6 Sol act as an editor on my new chapter and it did find decent issues with PoV and narrative distance but it was so bad at prose. The best way I can describe it is, it was too clean. Often times humans write about things unsaid and left for reader to interpret or deliberate awkward sentences to tease character psychology. The AI just straight up corrects these without second thought. This will likely be the case with general purpose models unless we see some genre specific fine tunes.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#59
A lot of the replies are insisting AI will get better at writing with more development but I don't see it. Even if you have a mathematically perfect writing AI you still run into the same problems you would have if you handed off your writing task to someone on fiverr or something. It can't magically know what you want to say, it only has the information you gave it. A prompt complex enough where it won't get any wrong ideas has to contain as much information as the output would have.. so just write it.

Re: The safest job from AI may be writing

#60

The real thing being said here is that the author can tell good writing from bad, and assumes everyone can... I'm a visual artist and at generative art is blindingly obvious.... To me.... But not to many folks around me! Including a few artists and art adjacent folks.

> generative art is blindingly obvious.... To me

Have you tested this systematically, or is it possible that you are experiencing survivorship bias? If there were any generative art pieces that you didn't notice, you would have thought that they were human-made. Therefore, all the pieces you identified were "obvious" to you. Not to mention false positives.

Post reply on HN