Why would you think it would?
You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.
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...
I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.
I don't think this shows what you think it shows. AI output (in short clumps) looks like human output; it's designed to do that. Naturally people will sometimes prefer it to other stuff that looks like human output, but crucially this shifts when they realise they're not actually being communicated with.
I think this is pretty much is what they were saying about the provenance being blind. If you are able to deduce the LLM usage through the long-form text then that removes the blindness and objectivity.
I wonder if you view adversarially humanised LLM-generated content in the same light as that which hasn't been obfuscated. I recall seeing some paper with examples posted here a few months ago, where I (and the participants in the study) literally couldn't tell the difference between them and human writing. I have considered using humanisation myself but there is both less control over the output and it (obviously) loses the LLM-like structure that I find so easy to read - and is therefore antithesis to my own objectives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well you are of course entitled to disagree.
> I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.
What you actually said was that I "didn't put any meaningful thought into it". Thats the INPUT, not OUTPUT. Anyway. I think we're as far as we are going to get with this "discussion". Have a good evening!
What he literally said was [0][1]
You submitted thoughtless pap; of course it didn't get any traction.
...
> What was thoughtless about it?
You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.
You didn't submit the input, you submitted the output. In actual fact, Planktonne asserted that the input that you did not publish would have been much more strongly preferred to the output that you did publish: [2]
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 submit BOTH the input AND the output - that was the ENTIRE point of the post.
Honestly, I beat myself up for years over having a reading disability - whereas it’s evident some of you don’t even make the effort to read yet still feel they have something to say.
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.
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