3 ms·

So let me get this straight: - You can use AI to look through docs and do research. - You can use AI to structure your argument. - You can NOT use AI to actu

So let me get this straight: - You can use AI to look through docs and do research. - You can use AI to structure your argument. - You can NOT use AI to actually write the prose. - You can use AI to proofread, especially for how effectively you've communicated. I don't know, man, that sounds a lot like using AI to write. Your writing probably says "load-bearing" less than Claude's outputs, but I'm not sure it's much less AI.

tptacek 13d ago
Reading through docs and doing research: of course. They're like much better search engines in that regard. It would be silly not to use them. Obviously, you need to review their search results against their sources. Structuring arguments: bad idea. Here you're having the model do your thinking for you. The problems that occur with having it write text recur at a macro level; too-obvious patterns. Readers just want to know what the prompt was. Writing the prose: obviously not. Proofreading: I think this works pretty great, as long as you have a structure to how you're doing it. "How do I make this better or sharper": bad, you're having the model structure your arguments for you. But for a predefined rubric of stylistic things --- writing you know how to do, that's just tedious to check manually? Hard to see a downside.
- sigmoid10 12d ago
  Most people apparently still don't get that using AI for mere proofreading is the same as using it as a mere knowledge base summary tool. Instead of proofreading, have it be adversarial. Let it try to take apart your argument. The latest generation is extremely good at calling out half-truths and circumstantial evidence across many fields. These days I would not dare to put anything in front of a human peer that hasn't passed at least an AI sanity check review.
  - tptacek 12d ago
    I don't want an AI's opinion on what I'm writing. I want its assessments against an objective rubric. The whole point is not to have the model weights do your thinking for you.
- spencerflem 12d ago
  They are much worse at citing sources compared to search engines
  - tptacek 12d ago
    If you can't find the source and verify it, don't use it. Seems simple.
kaonwarb 13d ago
I didn't see in the article where he recommended AI to structure an argument? He did suggest it can be helpful for structuring data.
deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
runarberg 12d ago
Giving the compiling evidence of how addictive generative AI is actually, it actually makes perfect sense that people are looking for strategies to excuse their AI-usage. I think no matter the strategy (and given AI is actually as addictive as evidence are suggesting), chances are the usage patterns will all converge to “Just use AI dummy“. This reminds me a lot of smokers who all have a great strategy beat the nicotine addiction. Only smoke on the weekends when out partying with friends, only smoke to use the extra sense of energy, only smoke to suppress my appetite, go to the gym 5 hours a week to offset the negative health impacts of smoking etc. etc. In reality most smokers will converge to about a pack a day.
piltdownman 12d ago
The likes of Sir Walter Scott, Peter Ackroyd, Stephen King, Tim Ferris, Robert Greene, Tucker Max, Catherine Asaro, Neil Gaiman, Charlaine Harris, Nancy Holder etc... all rely heavily on research assistants in various capacities including proofreading. Honest question - where does an Author like the above place in your authenticity framework?
gfody 12d ago
there's a growing contingent of anti-ai extremists shouting down anything that looks or feels like the thing they hate: actual slop. but there's a missing understanding of where slop really comes from - "you used ai instead of thinking" is just another guess, and mostly wrong since you literally cannot use ai without thinking - the prompts don't write themselves. slop has been around a lot longer than ai - the contingent needs to realize what it is they hate. instead of "don't use ai to write" it's "don't use ai to write slop" or better: "don't write slop"
satisfice 12d ago
The statement should be: never use AI to draft text that is to be presented as your own authorial voice. Never, never, do that! I draft all my own text that anyone will ever read as “that’s James Bach talking to me.” I want no one to be able to credibly question that. But of course, writing is more than merely drafting the text. As I draft, I write about ideas that other people or AI may have helped me come to.

tptacek 13d ago

Reading through docs and doing research: of course. They're like much better search engines in that regard. It would be silly not to use them. Obviously, you need to review their search results against their sources. Structuring arguments: bad idea. Here you're having the model do your thinking for you. The problems that occur with having it write text recur at a macro level; too-obvious patterns. Readers just want to know what the prompt was. Writing the prose: obviously not. Proofreading: I think this works pretty great, as long as you have a structure to how you're doing it. "How do I make this better or sharper": bad, you're having the model structure your arguments for you. But for a predefined rubric of stylistic things --- writing you know how to do, that's just tedious to check manually? Hard to see a downside.

sigmoid10 12d ago
Most people apparently still don't get that using AI for mere proofreading is the same as using it as a mere knowledge base summary tool. Instead of proofreading, have it be adversarial. Let it try to take apart your argument. The latest generation is extremely good at calling out half-truths and circumstantial evidence across many fields. These days I would not dare to put anything in front of a human peer that hasn't passed at least an AI sanity check review.
- tptacek 12d ago
  I don't want an AI's opinion on what I'm writing. I want its assessments against an objective rubric. The whole point is not to have the model weights do your thinking for you.
spencerflem 12d ago
They are much worse at citing sources compared to search engines
- tptacek 12d ago
  If you can't find the source and verify it, don't use it. Seems simple.

kaonwarb 13d ago

I didn't see in the article where he recommended AI to structure an argument? He did suggest it can be helpful for structuring data.

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

runarberg 12d ago

Giving the compiling evidence of how addictive generative AI is actually, it actually makes perfect sense that people are looking for strategies to excuse their AI-usage. I think no matter the strategy (and given AI is actually as addictive as evidence are suggesting), chances are the usage patterns will all converge to “Just use AI dummy“. This reminds me a lot of smokers who all have a great strategy beat the nicotine addiction. Only smoke on the weekends when out partying with friends, only smoke to use the extra sense of energy, only smoke to suppress my appetite, go to the gym 5 hours a week to offset the negative health impacts of smoking etc. etc. In reality most smokers will converge to about a pack a day.

piltdownman 12d ago

The likes of Sir Walter Scott, Peter Ackroyd, Stephen King, Tim Ferris, Robert Greene, Tucker Max, Catherine Asaro, Neil Gaiman, Charlaine Harris, Nancy Holder etc... all rely heavily on research assistants in various capacities including proofreading. Honest question - where does an Author like the above place in your authenticity framework?

gfody 12d ago

there's a growing contingent of anti-ai extremists shouting down anything that looks or feels like the thing they hate: actual slop. but there's a missing understanding of where slop really comes from - "you used ai instead of thinking" is just another guess, and mostly wrong since you literally cannot use ai without thinking - the prompts don't write themselves. slop has been around a lot longer than ai - the contingent needs to realize what it is they hate. instead of "don't use ai to write" it's "don't use ai to write slop" or better: "don't write slop"

satisfice 12d ago

The statement should be: never use AI to draft text that is to be presented as your own authorial voice. Never, never, do that! I draft all my own text that anyone will ever read as “that’s James Bach talking to me.” I want no one to be able to credibly question that. But of course, writing is more than merely drafting the text. As I draft, I write about ideas that other people or AI may have helped me come to.