4 ms·

This thread makes it sound like people are overestimating how good the content is supposed to be. Most clients want whats in their head, in writing, and they do

This thread makes it sound like people are overestimating how good the content is supposed to be. Most clients want whats in their head, in writing, and they do not fully comprehend or care when its written badly (they aren't writers), it should convey the idea that they already have, to their potential audience. I have a client for which I develop software, who now writes 3-4 articles per day with ChatGPT, he no longer works with writers who take at least a day or two to put out one article at a time, and often need revision. And it is paying off looking at ranking and analytics of his product. Yes, the content is not better than a human writer, but what my client is seeing: 1. Much faster turnaround. 2. He gets exactly what he wants and can revise himself. 3. Better results in his ranking due to the content. 4. Some sort of "Engine" which understand exactly what my client is talking about without getting confused. Isn't that a "better writer" than a human in this case? In his mind, if he goes back to a human writer, he loses a very important and measurable edge he has gained over the past 4-5 months.

armchairhacker 3y ago
> Now, freelancers who are less experienced and don’t offer specialized skills stand to lose their gigs, according to five clients Forbes interviewed And even then, I wonder if general writing quality improves, so that clients can't prompt-engineer good enough on their own and need to (you guessed it) hire freelancers to use GPT for them. You can GPT's "voice" by explicitly prompting it, e.g. to be more concise and use less big words, which makes it nearly impossible to distinguish from a human. And GPT-4 genuinely writes very well, well enough so that (especially after changing the voice) you don't need to hire a writer. Mind you, writing is a task people were getting payed very cheap to do, and I still don't think GPT-4 can write a best-selling novel or blog post all on its own (it can come up with creative ideas, but IMO still not as creative as a human; time will tell).
camillomiller 3y ago
Give those metrics a year, and we’ll see how it turns out. This reasoning completely disregards the long term vision for a clear quick gain. We’re in a reality distortion field where, for some reason, everyone thinks that the circus trick performed by GPTs is an absolute, it’s here to last forever and it will just get better. I can’t think of any other technology that has fooled business people so quickly into adopting it without ever worrying about the alpha nature of the tech itself. Feels like mass hypnosis
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  > We’re in a reality distortion field where, for some reason, everyone thinks that the circus trick performed by GPTs is an absolute, it’s here to last forever and it will just get better Why would it not last forever and improve? Unless OpenAI is currently selling api/chat access at a loss, but I see no reason to believe this.
  - camillomiller 3y ago
    Because infinite grow does not exist except in the deceptive narrative of neoliberal economics? Everyone is SO focused on the immediate byproduct of this new technology, and there's so little questioning if applying it to business can actually make sense in the mid to long term. There are regulation pitfalls waiting to happen. We have no idea how web search and content consumption will adapt to this avalanche of cheap irrelevant content. Yet we give for granted this is the future of everything, based on the fascination with what these machines can do right now. I'm saying this as someone who's also extremely fascinated and interested in the technology. This is the most excited I've been about tech in quite some time, but as I said, from a business perspective I've never seen so many business minds dive lemmings-style into an alpha-state technology before, and it's worrying how FOMO is pushing everyone to just take GPTs for granted!
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      You mean because in future it will be impossible to obtain a large high quality dataset due to AI contamination? Worst case you pre-train a model on pre 2022 data and finetune on a small, curated dataset of recent events. And there are some important breakthroughs that have happened since GPT-4 started training, so it will almost certainly be possible to make a significantly better model with the same dataset and inference cost.
    - cultureswitch 3y ago
      The LLMs are useful tools in their current state, right now. They produce text and images, which you can use freely after generation. Nothing about their success is predicated on assumptions about the future. There's no risk associated with using an LLM today.
fzeroracer 3y ago
I mean at that point why not write it themselves? That's essentially what it boils down to, that they believe they understand what they want more than experienced writers and are willing to use a generative AI to try and work for them. Of course the problem is that since they don't have the same editing skills or awareness, the moment they use an inappropriate line from the bot suddenly the reason why editors, writers etc exist becomes apparent.

armchairhacker 3y ago

> Now, freelancers who are less experienced and don’t offer specialized skills stand to lose their gigs, according to five clients Forbes interviewed And even then, I wonder if general writing quality improves, so that clients can't prompt-engineer good enough on their own and need to (you guessed it) hire freelancers to use GPT for them. You can GPT's "voice" by explicitly prompting it, e.g. to be more concise and use less big words, which makes it nearly impossible to distinguish from a human. And GPT-4 genuinely writes very well, well enough so that (especially after changing the voice) you don't need to hire a writer. Mind you, writing is a task people were getting payed very cheap to do, and I still don't think GPT-4 can write a best-selling novel or blog post all on its own (it can come up with creative ideas, but IMO still not as creative as a human; time will tell).

camillomiller 3y ago

Give those metrics a year, and we’ll see how it turns out. This reasoning completely disregards the long term vision for a clear quick gain. We’re in a reality distortion field where, for some reason, everyone thinks that the circus trick performed by GPTs is an absolute, it’s here to last forever and it will just get better. I can’t think of any other technology that has fooled business people so quickly into adopting it without ever worrying about the alpha nature of the tech itself. Feels like mass hypnosis

sebzim4500 3y ago
> We’re in a reality distortion field where, for some reason, everyone thinks that the circus trick performed by GPTs is an absolute, it’s here to last forever and it will just get better Why would it not last forever and improve? Unless OpenAI is currently selling api/chat access at a loss, but I see no reason to believe this.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  Because infinite grow does not exist except in the deceptive narrative of neoliberal economics? Everyone is SO focused on the immediate byproduct of this new technology, and there's so little questioning if applying it to business can actually make sense in the mid to long term. There are regulation pitfalls waiting to happen. We have no idea how web search and content consumption will adapt to this avalanche of cheap irrelevant content. Yet we give for granted this is the future of everything, based on the fascination with what these machines can do right now. I'm saying this as someone who's also extremely fascinated and interested in the technology. This is the most excited I've been about tech in quite some time, but as I said, from a business perspective I've never seen so many business minds dive lemmings-style into an alpha-state technology before, and it's worrying how FOMO is pushing everyone to just take GPTs for granted!
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    You mean because in future it will be impossible to obtain a large high quality dataset due to AI contamination? Worst case you pre-train a model on pre 2022 data and finetune on a small, curated dataset of recent events. And there are some important breakthroughs that have happened since GPT-4 started training, so it will almost certainly be possible to make a significantly better model with the same dataset and inference cost.
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    The LLMs are useful tools in their current state, right now. They produce text and images, which you can use freely after generation. Nothing about their success is predicated on assumptions about the future. There's no risk associated with using an LLM today.

fzeroracer 3y ago

I mean at that point why not write it themselves? That's essentially what it boils down to, that they believe they understand what they want more than experienced writers and are willing to use a generative AI to try and work for them. Of course the problem is that since they don't have the same editing skills or awareness, the moment they use an inappropriate line from the bot suddenly the reason why editors, writers etc exist becomes apparent.