5 ms·

I submit pretty much the opposite of this, but it didn't gain any traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49332291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4

I submit pretty much the opposite of this, but it didn't gain any traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49332291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49332291

meindnoch 2mo ago
Yeah, I wonder why! /s
- supermatt 2mo ago
  Because some people are just ignorant and downvote anything they either aren't willing or able to understand :)
Planktonne 2mo ago
You submitted thoughtless pap; of course it didn't get any traction. Why would you think it would?
- supermatt 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Planktonne 2mo ago
    > What was thoughtless about it? You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.
    - supermatt 2mo ago
      Yes, I did. That was the whole point of the post.
      - Planktonne 2mo ago
        I believe you believe you did, but the post makes more of a point through its conception than it does through its prose.
        supermatt 2mo ago
        > I believe you believe you did Wow, peak ableism. It is a post about how I use an LLM as an accessibility aid for reading and writing. We're not all out here faking creative writing you know...
        Planktonne 2mo ago
        I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more. I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.
        supermatt 2mo ago
        > I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages. Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.
        Planktonne 2mo ago
        I think you're conflating a couple of different things here. 1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to. 2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less valid, removing intention. That's thoughtless. You do not need a filter; it does not make your writing better, it makes it more pallid.
danielodievich 2mo ago
Fascinating seeing you get irate with people who are giving you feedback that your own thoughts are far superior to the regurgitated "cleaned up" version which is absolute garbage indeed. You have some solid ideas there but they are very poorly organized. I think you would benefit from a class in writing. I had a month-long technical writing workshop back a couple of decades ago that my company sponsored and it helped me tremendously with starting with wall of consciousness, progressing to writing plan, outline and then editing. It had a very positive impact on my career in professional services where clear communication via documents is an essential part of value prop.
- supermatt 2mo ago
  > Fascinating seeing you get irate with people who are giving you feedback that your own thoughts are far superior to the regurgitated "cleaned up" version which is absolute garbage indeed. That is not the part I take issue with at all! In fact many (if not all) of my comments to those people are thanking them. I think you need to go and double check exactly what I have replied! Feel free to link to anywhere you think I have been irate in response to someone stating their preference! I think you will find my only grievance is where people have called the INPUT thoughtless or zero effort. I’m finding it fascinating how people are commenting on what they think they have read rather than what they have actually read - both in relation to the post and in my replies. I do appreciate your advice on following a writing course. I did exactly that to great effect in the early 2000s. Unfortunately it is of little help these days

I submit pretty much the opposite of this, but it didn't gain any traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49332291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49332291

meindnoch 2mo ago

Yeah, I wonder why! /s

supermatt 2mo ago
Because some people are just ignorant and downvote anything they either aren't willing or able to understand :)

Planktonne 2mo ago

You submitted thoughtless pap; of course it didn't get any traction. Why would you think it would?

supermatt 2mo ago
[flagged]
- Planktonne 2mo ago
  > What was thoughtless about it? You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.
  - supermatt 2mo ago
    Yes, I did. That was the whole point of the post.
    - Planktonne 2mo ago
      I believe you believe you did, but the post makes more of a point through its conception than it does through its prose.
      - supermatt 2mo ago
        > I believe you believe you did Wow, peak ableism. It is a post about how I use an LLM as an accessibility aid for reading and writing. We're not all out here faking creative writing you know...
        Planktonne 2mo ago
        I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more. I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.
        supermatt 2mo ago
        > I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages. Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.
        Planktonne 2mo ago
        I think you're conflating a couple of different things here. 1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to. 2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less valid, removing intention. That's thoughtless. You do not need a filter; it does not make your writing better, it makes it more pallid.

danielodievich 2mo ago

Fascinating seeing you get irate with people who are giving you feedback that your own thoughts are far superior to the regurgitated "cleaned up" version which is absolute garbage indeed. You have some solid ideas there but they are very poorly organized. I think you would benefit from a class in writing. I had a month-long technical writing workshop back a couple of decades ago that my company sponsored and it helped me tremendously with starting with wall of consciousness, progressing to writing plan, outline and then editing. It had a very positive impact on my career in professional services where clear communication via documents is an essential part of value prop.

supermatt 2mo ago
> Fascinating seeing you get irate with people who are giving you feedback that your own thoughts are far superior to the regurgitated "cleaned up" version which is absolute garbage indeed. That is not the part I take issue with at all! In fact many (if not all) of my comments to those people are thanking them. I think you need to go and double check exactly what I have replied! Feel free to link to anywhere you think I have been irate in response to someone stating their preference! I think you will find my only grievance is where people have called the INPUT thoughtless or zero effort. I’m finding it fascinating how people are commenting on what they think they have read rather than what they have actually read - both in relation to the post and in my replies. I do appreciate your advice on following a writing course. I did exactly that to great effect in the early 2000s. Unfortunately it is of little help these days