4 ms·

Re speechwriters, he’d never get another job if he didn’t say that. AI has replaced neither full tech roles nor speechwriters. I think that’s a good example o

Re speechwriters, he’d never get another job if he didn’t say that. AI has replaced neither full tech roles nor speechwriters. I think that’s a good example of the kind of trivial error humans make all the time when not rereading/editing. When humans make mistakes, it’s usually that kind of mistake, which IMO doesn’t really matter in an internet comment. Unfortunately LLMs make gross errors of style and content and often just don’t make any sense in long form text. That’s a very different category of error.

hnlmorg 5d ago
> Re speechwriters, he’d never get another job if he didn’t say that. That would explain why he might say that if directly asked. But not why he volunteers that information nor talks about his research into Obamas speaking style before writing his first speech on Obamas behalf. Nor any of the other detail the he, and other speechwriters discuss when talking about their job. You accused me of not reading enough before, and yet here you are making bold claims about a profession you’ve clearly not read enough about. > AI has replaced neither full tech roles nor speechwriters As I said in my previous post: i claimed AI had replaced all people. I said it’s captured the low end of the market. > I think that’s a good example of the kind of trivial error humans make all the time when not rereading/editing. When humans make mistakes, it’s usually that kind of mistake, which IMO doesn’t really matter in an internet comment. If you’re referring to your error, then it was still mistake regardless of the nature of it. And yes it does matter. It matters because if you want to talk about professional-quality writing, it’s the kind of mistake LLMs wouldn’t make. > Unfortunately LLMs make gross errors of style and content and often just don’t make any sense in long form text. That’s a very different category of error. Your comment technically didn’t make any sense. I was able to extract the intended meaning, but that wasn’t because your comment was well written. And if we are going back to the speechwriting example, such prose isn’t read to an audience without the speaker reviewing and iterating with the speechwriter. And neither should LLM output be submitted without review. Your argument here is effectively saying “AI isn’t as good as any humans because I expect it to perform better than the top tier of professionals.” Clearly that’s a biased benchmark. Whereas what I’m saying is “AI isn’t as good as top level professionals but it already offers a good-enough alternative for the entry level requirements”. Which is a completely different yardstick. And all of this arose from your original comment that AI mimics voices so isn’t any use while ignoring the evidence provided that professional writers do exactly the same in many fields. Again, you’re deliberately skewing the facts to suit a position you’ve already pre-determined. Now I’m not going to argue that AI is a net benefit for society nor that AI is an ethical technology. Frankly, I prefer life pre-LLMs too. But that’s a personal opinion separate from the facts of the conversation.

hnlmorg 5d ago

> Re speechwriters, he’d never get another job if he didn’t say that. That would explain why he might say that if directly asked. But not why he volunteers that information nor talks about his research into Obamas speaking style before writing his first speech on Obamas behalf. Nor any of the other detail the he, and other speechwriters discuss when talking about their job. You accused me of not reading enough before, and yet here you are making bold claims about a profession you’ve clearly not read enough about. > AI has replaced neither full tech roles nor speechwriters As I said in my previous post: i claimed AI had replaced all people. I said it’s captured the low end of the market. > I think that’s a good example of the kind of trivial error humans make all the time when not rereading/editing. When humans make mistakes, it’s usually that kind of mistake, which IMO doesn’t really matter in an internet comment. If you’re referring to your error, then it was still mistake regardless of the nature of it. And yes it does matter. It matters because if you want to talk about professional-quality writing, it’s the kind of mistake LLMs wouldn’t make. > Unfortunately LLMs make gross errors of style and content and often just don’t make any sense in long form text. That’s a very different category of error. Your comment technically didn’t make any sense. I was able to extract the intended meaning, but that wasn’t because your comment was well written. And if we are going back to the speechwriting example, such prose isn’t read to an audience without the speaker reviewing and iterating with the speechwriter. And neither should LLM output be submitted without review. Your argument here is effectively saying “AI isn’t as good as any humans because I expect it to perform better than the top tier of professionals.” Clearly that’s a biased benchmark. Whereas what I’m saying is “AI isn’t as good as top level professionals but it already offers a good-enough alternative for the entry level requirements”. Which is a completely different yardstick. And all of this arose from your original comment that AI mimics voices so isn’t any use while ignoring the evidence provided that professional writers do exactly the same in many fields. Again, you’re deliberately skewing the facts to suit a position you’ve already pre-determined. Now I’m not going to argue that AI is a net benefit for society nor that AI is an ethical technology. Frankly, I prefer life pre-LLMs too. But that’s a personal opinion separate from the facts of the conversation.