3 ms·
> LLMs, in my opinion, are on average better at writing copy than humans. I disagree here. But what I found LLMs really useful for is summarizing topics like:
by fzeindl 3y ago
> LLMs, in my opinion, are on average better at writing copy than humans.
I disagree here.
But what I found LLMs really useful for is summarizing topics like: "Suppose I want to do XYZ, which steps should I take?" or "I want to write about ABC, how would you structure the article?"
The content is not very good if you look at it in detail, but LLMs provide good overviews and gave me ideas on parts of a topic I overlooked.
More librarian than search engine. I cannot copy and paste and rely on the results but I can rely on that they point me in a good direction.
- ravenstine 3y agoWhat you describe is one of the jobs that most text is currently failing at. Writing isn't just about documenting every itty bitty detail in academic verbosity, but to introduce people to ideas using effective summaries. The vast majority of what's out there flat out fails at this for at least a few reasons; many people have a very scatterbrained writing style to begin with, many authoritative sources provide more verbosity than necessary for the target audience, and the rest is often SEO garbage that speaks for itself. > More librarian than search engine. I cannot copy and paste and rely on the results but I can rely on that they point me in a good direction. The same can be said of physical books, and most content should be written more like that in books than what the internet is currently selecting for.