4 ms·
Here's AI responding to you: "You're describing the default output, and you're right — it's bad. But that's like judging a programming language by its tutorial
by taude 8mo ago
Here's AI responding to you:
"You're describing the default output, and you're right — it's bad. But that's like judging a programming language by its tutorial examples.
The actual skill is in the prompting, editing, and knowing when to throw the output away entirely. I use LLMs daily for technical writing and the first draft is almost never the final product. It's a starting point I can reshape faster than staring at a blank page.
The real problem isn't that AI can't produce concise, precise writing — it's that most people accept the first completion and hit send. That's a user problem, not a tool problem."
- mwigdahl 8mo agoThis response provides the recommended daily allowance of irony.
- toldnotmywrath 8mo agoI don't know if this happens to anyone else but on reading LLM-generated text I did not prompt, my eyes do incredibly quick saccades from start to middle to end in always around <1-2s no matter the length of the text. It's entirely involuntary, I am just unable to care. It's almost always justified because the text in question is always painfully bloated, and repetitive. The LLM-text you posted could have been (given I didn't read it carefully): "Skill issue. Iterate on the output, never accept what you receive on the first pass" Instead we get the standard: - Agree with the user - Lackluster simile - Actual content - Not X, Y. X, not Y.
- jraph 8mo ago> It's entirely involuntary, I am just unable to care Me too. I don't know about the eye movements, but there are probably dozens of us being unable to focus on a LLM-text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630931