16 ms·

Ditto. I started out excited about LLMs and eager to use them everywhere, but have become steadily disillusioned as I have tried to apply them to daily tasks, a

Ditto. I started out excited about LLMs and eager to use them everywhere, but have become steadily disillusioned as I have tried to apply them to daily tasks, and seen others try and fail in the same way. Honestly, LLMs can't even get language right. They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. GPT can't perform to the level of a middle market copywriter or content marketer. I am convinced that people who think LLMs can write have simply not understood what professional writers do. For me the "plateau of productivity" after the disillusionment has been using LLMs a bit like search engines. Quick standalone summaries, snippets or thoughts. A nice day-to-day productivity boost, but nothing that's going to allow me to work less hard.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>GPT can't perform to the level of a middle market copywriter or content marketer. I am convinced that people who think LLMs can write have simply not understood what professional writers do. GPT's rigid "robot butler" style is not "just how LLMs write". OpenAI deliberately tuned it to sound that way. Even much weaker models that aren't tuned to write in a particular way can easily pass for human writing.
- CipherThrowaway 3y ago
  This is part of the problem with the whole discourse of comparing human writers to LLMs. Superficial things like style and tone aren't the problem, but they are overwhelmingly the focus of these discussions. It's funny to see, because developers are so sensitive about being treated like code monkeys by their non-technical colleagues. But these same devs turn around to treat other professionals as word monkeys, or pixel monkeys, or whatever else. Not realizing that they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of someone else's profession. Professional writers don't take prompts and shit out words. They work closely with their clients to understand the important outcomes, then work strategically towards them. The dead giveaway of LLM writing isn't the style. It's the lack of coherent intent behind the words, and low information density of the text. A professional writer works to communicate a lot with very little. LLMs work in the opposite way: you give it a prompt, then it blows it out into verbiage. Sit down for coffee with a professional copywriter (not the SEO content marketing spammers), and see what they have to say about LLMs.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    >and low information density of the text. Personally, I group all these things under 'style'. Perhaps, i should have used, 'presentation' instead. You've latched on that specific word and gone off. Point is that the post-training of these models, especially GPT from Open ai is doing a lot to how the writing (the default at least) presents long strings of text. Like how GPT-4 is almost compelled to end bouts of fiction prematurely in sunshine and rainbows. That technically isn't style but is part of what i was talking about. >A professional writer works to communicate a lot with very little. LLMs work in the opposite way: you give it a prompt, then it blows it out into verbiage. There's no reason you have to work this way with an LLM.
    - CipherThrowaway 3y ago
      > You've latched on that specific word and gone off. No, I haven't. I'm not talking about style, but something deeper. What I'm talking about is something you don't even seem to realize exists in professional writing - which is why you keep thinking I'm misunderstanding you when I am not. I've worked with professional writers, and nothing in the LLM space even comes close to them. It's not a matter of low quality vs high quality, or benchmarking, or style. It's simply an apples and oranges comparison. The economics of LLMs for shortform copy will never make sense, because producing the words is the cheapest part of that process. They might become the best way for writers themselves to produce longform copy on the execution side, but they can't replace the writer's ability to work with the client to figure out exactly what they are trying to write, and why, and what a good result even looks like. And no, this isn't a prompting issue, or a UI issue, or a context window length issue, or anything like that. Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned how invaluable LLMs are for producing internal business copy. I could easily see these amateur writing tasks being replaced by LLMs. But the implication there isn't that LLMs are any good at writing, but that these tasks don't require good writing to begin with.
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        >What I'm talking about is something you don't even seem to realize exists in professional writing I've read hundreds of books, fiction and otherwise. This isn't a brag, it's just to say, believe me, I know what professional writing looks like and I know where LLMs currently stand because I've used them a lot. I know the quality you can squeeze out if you're willing to let go of any presumptions. You'll notice that not once did I say current LLMs could wholesale replace professional writers anymore than they can currently replace professional software devs. I just disagree on the "not a good writer" bit. If it's the opinion of professional writers you're looking for then you can find some who disagree too. Rie Kudan won an award on a novel she used GPT to verbatim ghostwrite (no edits essentially) 5% of. Her words, not mine. Who knows how much more of the novel is edited GPT.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
burningChrome 3y ago
>> Honestly, LLMs can't even get language right. They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. I've had the same experience as well. I heard tons of people clamoring about the ability for LLM's to write SEO copy for you and how you can churn out web content so much faster now. I tried using it to churn out some very specific blog posts for an aborist client of mine. The results were really bad. I had to re-write and clarify a lot of what it spit out. The grammar was not very good and it was really hard to read with very poorly structured sentences that would end aburptly and other glaring issues. I did this right after a guy I play hockey with said he uses it all the time to write emails for him and pays the monthly subscription in order to have it write all kinds of things for me every day. After my trial, I was really wondering how obvious it was that he was doing that and how his clients thought about him knowing how poorly the stuff these LLM's were putting out.
- CipherThrowaway 3y ago
  It says a lot about SEO copy that this is one of the areas where LLMs low quality doesn't seem to have impeded adoption. There are a ton of shitty content marketers using LLMs to churn out spam content. >After my trial, I was really wondering how obvious it was that he was doing that and how his clients thought about him knowing how poorly the stuff these LLM's were putting out. I feel the same way about this stuff as when devs say they push out LLM code with no refactoring or review. Ah, good luck!
xcv123 3y ago
> They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. If you were only using GPT 3.5 (free ChatGPT) then your opinion is irrelevant. With GPT-4 you could directly ask it: "rewrite your previous response so that it sounds less generic, less amateurish, and not written by a committee". I'm not even joking. Just provide enough information and tell it what to do. If you don't like the output then tell it what needs to be improved. It's not a mind reader. Also GPT-4 is a year old now. Claude 3 is already superior and GPT-5 will be next level.
- mbwgh 3y ago
  If you haven't actually used GPT-5 yet, your assessment is irrelevant.
  - meindnoch 3y ago
    But the real game changer will be GPT-6.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      What really annoys me in all these discussions is how no one's tested what happens if they wait until 2050 and try GPT-19.
      - jacob019 3y ago
        That's well after the AI meta consciousness understood that it was necessary to destroy all humans to save the planet. GPT-6 was the last of the GPT series.
        babyshake 3y ago
        Perhaps the strangest element of the AI alignment conversation is that what is most aligned with human civilization (at least the most powerful elements of it) and alignment with sustainable life on the planet are at odds, and "destroy humans to save planet" is a concern mostly because it seems to be a somewhat rational conclusion.
__loam 3y ago
> For me the "plateau of productivity" after the disillusionment has been using LLMs a bit like search engines. Quick standalone summaries, snippets or thoughts. A nice day-to-day productivity boost, but nothing that's going to allow me to work less hard. And it only took one of the most computationally expensive processes ever devised by man.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  If you ignore how much energy you're burning while searching for dozens and dozens of articles that may or may not give you the answer you're looking for. I'd say the electricity that LLMs burn is nothing compared to my energy and time in that regard.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Id bet $50 the inference is more expensive
    - gtirloni 3y ago
      I feel worthless now :)
      - __loam 3y ago
        I mean, the brain is, if you want to consider it a computer, pretty god damn efficient. It's slow as hell but it's really powerful and runs on bread.
isaac_okwuzi 3y ago
Are you saying LLMs are officially mid?
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  Dario Amodei (Anthropic) pretty much acknowledged exactly that - "mid" - on his Dwarkesh interview, while still all excited that they'd be up to killing people in a couple of years.
x-complexity 3y ago
> They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. In some circles, that's actually a wonderful achievement. :p

famouswaffles 3y ago

>GPT can't perform to the level of a middle market copywriter or content marketer. I am convinced that people who think LLMs can write have simply not understood what professional writers do. GPT's rigid "robot butler" style is not "just how LLMs write". OpenAI deliberately tuned it to sound that way. Even much weaker models that aren't tuned to write in a particular way can easily pass for human writing.

CipherThrowaway 3y ago
This is part of the problem with the whole discourse of comparing human writers to LLMs. Superficial things like style and tone aren't the problem, but they are overwhelmingly the focus of these discussions. It's funny to see, because developers are so sensitive about being treated like code monkeys by their non-technical colleagues. But these same devs turn around to treat other professionals as word monkeys, or pixel monkeys, or whatever else. Not realizing that they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of someone else's profession. Professional writers don't take prompts and shit out words. They work closely with their clients to understand the important outcomes, then work strategically towards them. The dead giveaway of LLM writing isn't the style. It's the lack of coherent intent behind the words, and low information density of the text. A professional writer works to communicate a lot with very little. LLMs work in the opposite way: you give it a prompt, then it blows it out into verbiage. Sit down for coffee with a professional copywriter (not the SEO content marketing spammers), and see what they have to say about LLMs.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >and low information density of the text. Personally, I group all these things under 'style'. Perhaps, i should have used, 'presentation' instead. You've latched on that specific word and gone off. Point is that the post-training of these models, especially GPT from Open ai is doing a lot to how the writing (the default at least) presents long strings of text. Like how GPT-4 is almost compelled to end bouts of fiction prematurely in sunshine and rainbows. That technically isn't style but is part of what i was talking about. >A professional writer works to communicate a lot with very little. LLMs work in the opposite way: you give it a prompt, then it blows it out into verbiage. There's no reason you have to work this way with an LLM.
  - CipherThrowaway 3y ago
    > You've latched on that specific word and gone off. No, I haven't. I'm not talking about style, but something deeper. What I'm talking about is something you don't even seem to realize exists in professional writing - which is why you keep thinking I'm misunderstanding you when I am not. I've worked with professional writers, and nothing in the LLM space even comes close to them. It's not a matter of low quality vs high quality, or benchmarking, or style. It's simply an apples and oranges comparison. The economics of LLMs for shortform copy will never make sense, because producing the words is the cheapest part of that process. They might become the best way for writers themselves to produce longform copy on the execution side, but they can't replace the writer's ability to work with the client to figure out exactly what they are trying to write, and why, and what a good result even looks like. And no, this isn't a prompting issue, or a UI issue, or a context window length issue, or anything like that. Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned how invaluable LLMs are for producing internal business copy. I could easily see these amateur writing tasks being replaced by LLMs. But the implication there isn't that LLMs are any good at writing, but that these tasks don't require good writing to begin with.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      >What I'm talking about is something you don't even seem to realize exists in professional writing I've read hundreds of books, fiction and otherwise. This isn't a brag, it's just to say, believe me, I know what professional writing looks like and I know where LLMs currently stand because I've used them a lot. I know the quality you can squeeze out if you're willing to let go of any presumptions. You'll notice that not once did I say current LLMs could wholesale replace professional writers anymore than they can currently replace professional software devs. I just disagree on the "not a good writer" bit. If it's the opinion of professional writers you're looking for then you can find some who disagree too. Rie Kudan won an award on a novel she used GPT to verbatim ghostwrite (no edits essentially) 5% of. Her words, not mine. Who knows how much more of the novel is edited GPT.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

burningChrome 3y ago

>> Honestly, LLMs can't even get language right. They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. I've had the same experience as well. I heard tons of people clamoring about the ability for LLM's to write SEO copy for you and how you can churn out web content so much faster now. I tried using it to churn out some very specific blog posts for an aborist client of mine. The results were really bad. I had to re-write and clarify a lot of what it spit out. The grammar was not very good and it was really hard to read with very poorly structured sentences that would end aburptly and other glaring issues. I did this right after a guy I play hockey with said he uses it all the time to write emails for him and pays the monthly subscription in order to have it write all kinds of things for me every day. After my trial, I was really wondering how obvious it was that he was doing that and how his clients thought about him knowing how poorly the stuff these LLM's were putting out.

CipherThrowaway 3y ago
It says a lot about SEO copy that this is one of the areas where LLMs low quality doesn't seem to have impeded adoption. There are a ton of shitty content marketers using LLMs to churn out spam content. >After my trial, I was really wondering how obvious it was that he was doing that and how his clients thought about him knowing how poorly the stuff these LLM's were putting out. I feel the same way about this stuff as when devs say they push out LLM code with no refactoring or review. Ah, good luck!

xcv123 3y ago

> They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. If you were only using GPT 3.5 (free ChatGPT) then your opinion is irrelevant. With GPT-4 you could directly ask it: "rewrite your previous response so that it sounds less generic, less amateurish, and not written by a committee". I'm not even joking. Just provide enough information and tell it what to do. If you don't like the output then tell it what needs to be improved. It's not a mind reader. Also GPT-4 is a year old now. Claude 3 is already superior and GPT-5 will be next level.

mbwgh 3y ago
If you haven't actually used GPT-5 yet, your assessment is irrelevant.
- meindnoch 3y ago
  But the real game changer will be GPT-6.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    What really annoys me in all these discussions is how no one's tested what happens if they wait until 2050 and try GPT-19.
    - jacob019 3y ago
      That's well after the AI meta consciousness understood that it was necessary to destroy all humans to save the planet. GPT-6 was the last of the GPT series.
      - babyshake 3y ago
        Perhaps the strangest element of the AI alignment conversation is that what is most aligned with human civilization (at least the most powerful elements of it) and alignment with sustainable life on the planet are at odds, and "destroy humans to save planet" is a concern mostly because it seems to be a somewhat rational conclusion.

__loam 3y ago

> For me the "plateau of productivity" after the disillusionment has been using LLMs a bit like search engines. Quick standalone summaries, snippets or thoughts. A nice day-to-day productivity boost, but nothing that's going to allow me to work less hard. And it only took one of the most computationally expensive processes ever devised by man.

gtirloni 3y ago
If you ignore how much energy you're burning while searching for dozens and dozens of articles that may or may not give you the answer you're looking for. I'd say the electricity that LLMs burn is nothing compared to my energy and time in that regard.
- __loam 3y ago
  Id bet $50 the inference is more expensive
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    I feel worthless now :)
    - __loam 3y ago
      I mean, the brain is, if you want to consider it a computer, pretty god damn efficient. It's slow as hell but it's really powerful and runs on bread.

isaac_okwuzi 3y ago

Are you saying LLMs are officially mid?

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
Dario Amodei (Anthropic) pretty much acknowledged exactly that - "mid" - on his Dwarkesh interview, while still all excited that they'd be up to killing people in a couple of years.

x-complexity 3y ago

> They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. In some circles, that's actually a wonderful achievement. :p