4 ms·

It took 50+ prompts to get it to this state. I’d say that counts as putting enough care into it to be my voice.

by steipete 1y ago

nathanasmith 1y ago
Readers would have been better served with the prompts you wrote than the AI generated output.
- steipete 1y ago
  All ~50 prompts would take you have an hour to read and wouldn’t bring across my point nearly as good.
  - layer8 1y ago
    But it would provide a better illustration of how you’re actually working.
    - simonw 1y ago
      If you're interested in seeing the process behind this piece of writing you can read through a lot of the details in the 71 commits that went into creating the story in the PR: https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106/commits https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106/commits
  - Applejinx 1y ago
    Well…
- simonw 1y ago
  I don't think that's true. What matters to me is the human editorial touch: I don't want to wade through 50 prompts and responses, I want a human author to have resolved that process into a final output that they think is worth sharing with me.
  - rfoo 1y ago
    I think the correct benchmark is `len()`. Give me your prompts or your output, whichever is shorter.
    - tasuki 1y ago
      No
- thrwthsnw 1y ago
  Try reading a manuscript copy of a book before it’s been edited. Yes I know some people do this out of interest but for most people it’s not the type of writing they are interested in reading or would get the most out of.
simonw 1y ago
What matters to me is that a human writer has verified the content and is ready to stake their reputation on it being worth my time to read. It sounds like that's what you've done here, in which case I don't feel that you are wasting my time by having me read something that you haven't even reviewed yourself.
- MichaelZuo 1y ago
  It does seem weird for someone to expect others to spend their time fully reading something… when they also have access to the same tools and can just tell it to summarize it back.
  - simonw 1y ago
    That would be true for writing where the author typed a sentence and the LLM expanded it to multiple paragraphs. That is not what happened here: the author provided a lot more input than the finished article, and used the LLM to help crunch that down to as good a version as possible of the points there wanted to make.
    - MichaelZuo 1y ago
      Or so the author claims…
      - simonw 1y ago
        They provided receipts: https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106 https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        Where does it show “that the author provided a lot more input than the finished article“?
        1y ago
bananapub 1y ago
so, are you vouching for this entire text, and are happy for us to treat it as if you wrote it? so that if it has sloppy mistakes or doesn't reflect your thinking well, you do want others to trust your work less?

It took 50+ prompts to get it to this state. I’d say that counts as putting enough care into it to be my voice.

nathanasmith 1y ago

Readers would have been better served with the prompts you wrote than the AI generated output.

steipete 1y ago
All ~50 prompts would take you have an hour to read and wouldn’t bring across my point nearly as good.
- layer8 1y ago
  But it would provide a better illustration of how you’re actually working.
  - simonw 1y ago
    If you're interested in seeing the process behind this piece of writing you can read through a lot of the details in the 71 commits that went into creating the story in the PR: https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106/commits https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106/commits
- Applejinx 1y ago
  Well…
simonw 1y ago
I don't think that's true. What matters to me is the human editorial touch: I don't want to wade through 50 prompts and responses, I want a human author to have resolved that process into a final output that they think is worth sharing with me.
- rfoo 1y ago
  I think the correct benchmark is `len()`. Give me your prompts or your output, whichever is shorter.
  - tasuki 1y ago
    No
thrwthsnw 1y ago
Try reading a manuscript copy of a book before it’s been edited. Yes I know some people do this out of interest but for most people it’s not the type of writing they are interested in reading or would get the most out of.

simonw 1y ago

What matters to me is that a human writer has verified the content and is ready to stake their reputation on it being worth my time to read. It sounds like that's what you've done here, in which case I don't feel that you are wasting my time by having me read something that you haven't even reviewed yourself.

MichaelZuo 1y ago
It does seem weird for someone to expect others to spend their time fully reading something… when they also have access to the same tools and can just tell it to summarize it back.
- simonw 1y ago
  That would be true for writing where the author typed a sentence and the LLM expanded it to multiple paragraphs. That is not what happened here: the author provided a lot more input than the finished article, and used the LLM to help crunch that down to as good a version as possible of the points there wanted to make.
  - MichaelZuo 1y ago
    Or so the author claims…
    - simonw 1y ago
      They provided receipts: https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106 https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106
      - MichaelZuo 1y ago
        Where does it show “that the author provided a lot more input than the finished article“?
        1y ago

bananapub 1y ago

so, are you vouching for this entire text, and are happy for us to treat it as if you wrote it? so that if it has sloppy mistakes or doesn't reflect your thinking well, you do want others to trust your work less?