upvote
Human insight can emerge from attacking the semblance of sense in the LLM's output.

Much of the cognitive work in writing emerges in the labor of writing prose and challenging assumptions against the model you build in your head as you go. I've found this process is inverted when working with an LLM: it in effect emits a provisional structure first, and I discover what I actually think by finding where its output is vague, overconfident, incomplete or outright false.

Accepting surface-level coherence as finished thought is the failure mode to avoid.

reply
Yeah I've written some docs using the following process:

1. Throw some notes, PR links, etc. into copilot and ask for a first draft

2. Go back and forth for a while asking for revisions

3. Trash all of the AI-generated text and rewrite the whole thing myself from scratch, which I can do quickly in a typing frenzy because I now have a clear idea what I want, by way of seeing what I don't want.

reply
I do this
reply
Sure this is true. And if an AI draft helps in creating quality writing, great!

I was thinking more when it comes to stuff other people send me (like a freelance writer) and “editing” is basically writing the first draft because no cognitive effort has yet been spent on the piece

reply
And the mechanical correctness is the hazard. To anyone used to essay assignments since time immemorial it feels intuitively done.
reply
Yes! It has all the polish and flourish of something that has all the finishing touches, but none of the underlying structure your brain infers it to have due to its polish.
reply
> It’s the same with writing: AI writing is coherent on the surface, but is impossible to edit because it’s built on no real insight.

LLMs lie in the unhappy-medium between an abstract machine we can reason-about versus a person we can instinctively model and simulate.

Instead it's a complicated machine that evades both reasoning and intuition.

reply