I sort of agree, but I also think the advice here is circular. To look at the style suggestions produced by an LLM and decide that you agree with some of them in spirit, but want to put it in your own words, you already need how to know how to write well.
In other words, you need to read a style manual or two, and you need to read and have opinions about other people's work. You must have taste. Otherwise, you can't really distinguish between good and bad advice. You'll anchor to the suggestions made by the LLM and it will turn your writing into LLMese. I guess that works - it sure gets clicks on HN - but it won't be your voice anymore.
There's still value in getting a second pair of eyes on what you write. But here's another cool trick that gives you a similar benefit: just let it stew. Go for a walk, grab a lunch. Re-read what you wrote. You'll be surprised.
Right, but neither is an LLM because most of the time, it conflates "helpful" with "sycophantic" by default (i.e., it loves the thesis of your essay even if it's dumb). If you prompt it to be critical, it often defaults to over-the-top nonsense, so it's hard to strike the right balance.
A good approach may be to present an LLM with an article without saying its yours, and then have it write a thoughtful polemic. But it's not a very efficient way of doing things.
Right, I'm broadly not a fan of LLMs either. But I understand the use case here. If you can't get an actual human to look at your writing, an LLM used carefully could be better than nothing.
in_absentia · · focus · HN ↗
In other words, you need to read a style manual or two, and you need to read and have opinions about other people's work. You must have taste. Otherwise, you can't really distinguish between good and bad advice. You'll anchor to the suggestions made by the LLM and it will turn your writing into LLMese. I guess that works - it sure gets clicks on HN - but it won't be your voice anymore.
There's still value in getting a second pair of eyes on what you write. But here's another cool trick that gives you a similar benefit: just let it stew. Go for a walk, grab a lunch. Re-read what you wrote. You'll be surprised.
andrewflnr · · focus · HN ↗
And, as a fan of the "let it stew" technique, it's not a full substitute for an actual other perspective.
in_absentia · · focus · HN ↗
A good approach may be to present an LLM with an article without saying its yours, and then have it write a thoughtful polemic. But it's not a very efficient way of doing things.
andrewflnr · · focus · HN ↗