4 ms·

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

by Planktonne 2mo ago

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.
        supermatt 2mo ago
        I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them. 1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM. 2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship. 3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools. You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims. As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention. You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.
        Planktonne 2mo ago
        > are you disagreeing with them all Yes. I think an LLM can be useful for trivial or functional tasks, but for expressing complex positions, it's worse than useless. It's absolutely valid to dismiss LLM-generated prose, and people who who think they're doing 'assisted authorship' tend to be mistaken. I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.

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.
        supermatt 2mo ago
        I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them. 1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM. 2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship. 3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools. You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims. As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention. You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.
        Planktonne 2mo ago
        > are you disagreeing with them all Yes. I think an LLM can be useful for trivial or functional tasks, but for expressing complex positions, it's worse than useless. It's absolutely valid to dismiss LLM-generated prose, and people who who think they're doing 'assisted authorship' tend to be mistaken. I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.