3 ms·

Whether it is 1-to-1 (friend instant-chat/emails friend) or 1-to-many (think movie) the message is a snapshot - however incomplete - of thoughts the sender want

Whether it is 1-to-1 (friend instant-chat/emails friend) or 1-to-many (think movie) the message is a snapshot - however incomplete - of thoughts the sender wanted the recipient to have. Any layer added in that circumstance confuses the recipient: what was it the sender actually wanted me to think? Using AI to make a longer message from a prompt causes the recipient wonder: 1. What was the prompt? 2. Why not send me the prompt instead of making me spend more time reading? 3. Why interject a layer of doubt? Because now I question if the AI got the intent correct and the facts correct. Are they trying to hide something? Unless those were the thoughts the sender wanted the receiver to have, it seems like a failure. The problem is the future will entail every interaction starting with "Is this message from an AI?" before possibly running through the above thoughts or simply enjoying a "straight" message; which can be curly enough as is. EDIT: clarity and final point.

barfbagginus 2y ago
Effective AI writing is not a single prompt. You're projecting a judgement based on a simplistic idea about AI writing, which throws away the incredible creative potential of the medium if used by an honest writer. If my final piece is 800 words, that means I spent at least 10,000 words conversing with the AI. Setting out the basic ideas; asking the AI to criticize missing ideas; organizing the outline; AI drafting section by section with human feedback and questions; manually drafting sections and getting AI questions and feedback; throwing away the first draft and rewriting the second draft from a new outline; throwing away whole sections of that and rewriting. Only then do I do final proof reading. If you're suspicious about the prompt I can send you the 10,000 word thread where I forged the work. You'll see that the 800 words is preferable. But you'll also see why I'm proud of that thread. And maybe you will want to learn how to do it yourself, and give credit to those who can do it. The final result is always much more than the initial prompt because I poured my blood and sweat and tears into the criticism and rewriting. It's a process of focused knowledge synthesis and compression, rather than a mindless expansion of a simple seed prompt. If you want to see the blood sweat and tears, let's have a conversation requiring real essays. Then let's exchange our AI composition threads and compare AI assisted writing styles!

barfbagginus 2y ago

Effective AI writing is not a single prompt. You're projecting a judgement based on a simplistic idea about AI writing, which throws away the incredible creative potential of the medium if used by an honest writer. If my final piece is 800 words, that means I spent at least 10,000 words conversing with the AI. Setting out the basic ideas; asking the AI to criticize missing ideas; organizing the outline; AI drafting section by section with human feedback and questions; manually drafting sections and getting AI questions and feedback; throwing away the first draft and rewriting the second draft from a new outline; throwing away whole sections of that and rewriting. Only then do I do final proof reading. If you're suspicious about the prompt I can send you the 10,000 word thread where I forged the work. You'll see that the 800 words is preferable. But you'll also see why I'm proud of that thread. And maybe you will want to learn how to do it yourself, and give credit to those who can do it. The final result is always much more than the initial prompt because I poured my blood and sweat and tears into the criticism and rewriting. It's a process of focused knowledge synthesis and compression, rather than a mindless expansion of a simple seed prompt. If you want to see the blood sweat and tears, let's have a conversation requiring real essays. Then let's exchange our AI composition threads and compare AI assisted writing styles!