4 ms·

I'm a marketer. I write a lot. GPT-4.5 is really good at natural sounding writing. It's nearing the point where it would be worth $200/mth for me to have access

I'm a marketer. I write a lot. GPT-4.5 is really good at natural sounding writing. It's nearing the point where it would be worth $200/mth for me to have access to it all the time.

seydor 1y ago
If everyone is as good as you , how much will your work cost?
- cptvideo 1y ago
  A better question might be: "If everyone is as good as you, how much will you be worth in the marketplace?"
  - thomquaid 1y ago
    Approximately $200/month apparently.
  - karlgkk 1y ago
    Well, an even better question might be: if everyone is the same, what does it take to be exceptional? I'm firmly convinced that being able to troubleshoot code, even code generated by LLMs, and to write guidelines and tests to make sure it's functioning, is a skill of a shrinking pool For smaller stuff, great. Everyone's the same. The second your application starts gaining responsibility and complexity, you're going to need to be able to demonstrate reproducibility and reliability of your application to stakeholders. Like, your job increasingly will be creating interface checkpoints in the code, and then having the model generate each step of the pipeline. That's great, but you have understand and validate what it wrote, AND have a rich set of very comprehensive tests to be able to iterate quickly. And as mentioned, on top of that, large swaths of the field of new people have their brains completely rotted by these tools. (certainly not all new/young people, but i've seen some real rough shit) If anything, I see a weird gap opening up - people who dont adopt these tools start falling out of the industry - they're too slow - people who adopt these tools too early stop getting hired - they're too risky - people who have experience in industry/troubleshooting/etc, who adopt these tools, become modern day cobol programmers - they're charging $700 an hour the real question to me is this: does the amount of people taken out of the pool by being slow or risky due to these tools, outpace the reduction in jobs caused by these tools?
    - MoonGhost 1y ago
      > I'm firmly convinced that being able to troubleshoot code, even code generated by LLMs, and to write guidelines and tests to make sure it's functioning, is a skill of a shrinking pool Well, today only scientists can make stone tools.
      - karlgkk 1y ago
        I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make but I’ve had so many junior level interviewees and interactions where they are unable to do anything without an LLM coaching them the whole way. This is dangerous! It’s like if I was hiring a mathematician. I’d expect them to use a calculator or CAS package but I’d also expect them to be able to do everything by hand. I wouldn’t ever waste their time by making them do that, of course.
        MoonGhost 1y ago
        > I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make I was trying to say that dropping old technologies isn't always bad. > It’s like if I was hiring a mathematician. Do you expect candidate to memorize all theorems up to date. Usually people forgetting things they don't actively use. But they are able to refresh their knowledge if needed. I've learned quite a lot, but no, I don't remember even key theorems from partial differential equations (used them in my diploma). I can refresh and relearn quickly, I'm sure. Using LLM without understanding disqualifies the candidate, even monkey can do it. But if he deeply understands the subject and uses LLM for like handbook for minor details.. that's different.
        karlgkk 1y ago
        > Do you expect candidate to memorize all theorems up to date. Completely missing the point. I expect them to have enough knowledge to briefly study the theorems and understand how to apply them. I’m not trying to quiz people, I’m trying to get things done - and done well. And for the stuff I’m doing, it’s required that any engineer understand what they’re building and why. > Using LLM without understanding disqualifies the candidate, even monkey can do it. But if he deeply understands the subject and uses LLM for like handbook for minor details.. that's different The problem is that they don’t understand the subject and overly rely on LLMs. Completely falling apart during in person interviews. Surface knowledge of everything and no depth. Using LLMs isn’t inherently bad but I’ve seen severe side effects from students and junior engineers who over rely on it.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  It probably would be just like with developers. A great developer + an AI = productive. A shitty developer + an AI = still shit. AI does not make all developers the same. And it doesn't make all marketers the same.
rahimnathwani 1y ago
I used the GPT-4.5 API to write a novel, with a reasonably simple loop-based workflow. The novel was good enough that my son read the whole thing. And he has no issue quitting a book part way through if it becomes boring.
- skybrian 1y ago
  I’m curious: what was the novel about?
  - rahimnathwani 1y ago
    It's a comedic adventure novel set in the Minecraft universe. Actually I forgot there's a second one he read all the way through, for which he defined the initial concept and early plot, but then the rest of the plot and the writing were all done by GPT-4.5. The code is kind of basic, and each chapter is written without the full text of prior chapters, but the output isn't bad. https://gist.github.com/rahimnathwani/41e5bc475163cd5ea4382226c213df90 https://gist.github.com/rahimnathwani/41e5bc475163cd5ea43822...
    - f3b5 1y ago
      Very fascinating, I tried doing the same years ago with a simple Markov chain model. The biggest problem back then was inconsistency. I'd love to read a chapter of the Minecraft or hard magic / sci-fi books to check out the writing.
      - rahimnathwani 1y ago
        Email in profile.
    - Aeolun 1y ago
      Not having access to earlier chapters is a terrible thing, but maybe possible if you aren’t too bothered by inconsistency (or your chapter summaries are explicit enough about what is supposed to happen I suppose). I find the quality rapidly degrades as soon as I run out of context to fit the whole text of the novel. Even summarizing the chapters doesn’t work well.
kobe19900701 1y ago
I think writing claude sonnet 4 is more human - like.
hooverd 1y ago
I wish all LLM-written marketing copy had disclaimers so I knew never to waste my time reading it.

I'm a marketer. I write a lot. GPT-4.5 is really good at natural sounding writing. It's nearing the point where it would be worth $200/mth for me to have access to it all the time.

seydor 1y ago

If everyone is as good as you , how much will your work cost?

cptvideo 1y ago
A better question might be: "If everyone is as good as you, how much will you be worth in the marketplace?"
- thomquaid 1y ago
  Approximately $200/month apparently.
- karlgkk 1y ago
  Well, an even better question might be: if everyone is the same, what does it take to be exceptional? I'm firmly convinced that being able to troubleshoot code, even code generated by LLMs, and to write guidelines and tests to make sure it's functioning, is a skill of a shrinking pool For smaller stuff, great. Everyone's the same. The second your application starts gaining responsibility and complexity, you're going to need to be able to demonstrate reproducibility and reliability of your application to stakeholders. Like, your job increasingly will be creating interface checkpoints in the code, and then having the model generate each step of the pipeline. That's great, but you have understand and validate what it wrote, AND have a rich set of very comprehensive tests to be able to iterate quickly. And as mentioned, on top of that, large swaths of the field of new people have their brains completely rotted by these tools. (certainly not all new/young people, but i've seen some real rough shit) If anything, I see a weird gap opening up - people who dont adopt these tools start falling out of the industry - they're too slow - people who adopt these tools too early stop getting hired - they're too risky - people who have experience in industry/troubleshooting/etc, who adopt these tools, become modern day cobol programmers - they're charging $700 an hour the real question to me is this: does the amount of people taken out of the pool by being slow or risky due to these tools, outpace the reduction in jobs caused by these tools?
  - MoonGhost 1y ago
    > I'm firmly convinced that being able to troubleshoot code, even code generated by LLMs, and to write guidelines and tests to make sure it's functioning, is a skill of a shrinking pool Well, today only scientists can make stone tools.
    - karlgkk 1y ago
      I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make but I’ve had so many junior level interviewees and interactions where they are unable to do anything without an LLM coaching them the whole way. This is dangerous! It’s like if I was hiring a mathematician. I’d expect them to use a calculator or CAS package but I’d also expect them to be able to do everything by hand. I wouldn’t ever waste their time by making them do that, of course.
      - MoonGhost 1y ago
        > I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make I was trying to say that dropping old technologies isn't always bad. > It’s like if I was hiring a mathematician. Do you expect candidate to memorize all theorems up to date. Usually people forgetting things they don't actively use. But they are able to refresh their knowledge if needed. I've learned quite a lot, but no, I don't remember even key theorems from partial differential equations (used them in my diploma). I can refresh and relearn quickly, I'm sure. Using LLM without understanding disqualifies the candidate, even monkey can do it. But if he deeply understands the subject and uses LLM for like handbook for minor details.. that's different.
        karlgkk 1y ago
        > Do you expect candidate to memorize all theorems up to date. Completely missing the point. I expect them to have enough knowledge to briefly study the theorems and understand how to apply them. I’m not trying to quiz people, I’m trying to get things done - and done well. And for the stuff I’m doing, it’s required that any engineer understand what they’re building and why. > Using LLM without understanding disqualifies the candidate, even monkey can do it. But if he deeply understands the subject and uses LLM for like handbook for minor details.. that's different The problem is that they don’t understand the subject and overly rely on LLMs. Completely falling apart during in person interviews. Surface knowledge of everything and no depth. Using LLMs isn’t inherently bad but I’ve seen severe side effects from students and junior engineers who over rely on it.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
It probably would be just like with developers. A great developer + an AI = productive. A shitty developer + an AI = still shit. AI does not make all developers the same. And it doesn't make all marketers the same.

rahimnathwani 1y ago

I used the GPT-4.5 API to write a novel, with a reasonably simple loop-based workflow. The novel was good enough that my son read the whole thing. And he has no issue quitting a book part way through if it becomes boring.

skybrian 1y ago
I’m curious: what was the novel about?
- rahimnathwani 1y ago
  It's a comedic adventure novel set in the Minecraft universe. Actually I forgot there's a second one he read all the way through, for which he defined the initial concept and early plot, but then the rest of the plot and the writing were all done by GPT-4.5. The code is kind of basic, and each chapter is written without the full text of prior chapters, but the output isn't bad. https://gist.github.com/rahimnathwani/41e5bc475163cd5ea4382226c213df90 https://gist.github.com/rahimnathwani/41e5bc475163cd5ea43822...
  - f3b5 1y ago
    Very fascinating, I tried doing the same years ago with a simple Markov chain model. The biggest problem back then was inconsistency. I'd love to read a chapter of the Minecraft or hard magic / sci-fi books to check out the writing.
    - rahimnathwani 1y ago
      Email in profile.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    Not having access to earlier chapters is a terrible thing, but maybe possible if you aren’t too bothered by inconsistency (or your chapter summaries are explicit enough about what is supposed to happen I suppose). I find the quality rapidly degrades as soon as I run out of context to fit the whole text of the novel. Even summarizing the chapters doesn’t work well.

kobe19900701 1y ago

I think writing claude sonnet 4 is more human - like.

hooverd 1y ago

I wish all LLM-written marketing copy had disclaimers so I knew never to waste my time reading it.