The distinction I would draw is between a model producing prose a human then reads, and a model parsing something into a schema a human then verifies.
I use one for the second: photograph a shop receipt, get back shop, date, total and line items as structured fields. The output is checkable against the piece of paper in your hand, it costs about a third of a cent per receipt, and when it is wrong you see it immediately because the total does not match.
That is almost the opposite of writing. There is a ground truth, the human is the verifier rather than the audience, and a wrong answer is cheap to spot. I agree with the essay about prose, and I think the reason has less to do with AI than with whether anything exists to check the output against.
oleksii_kpi · · focus · HN ↗
I use one for the second: photograph a shop receipt, get back shop, date, total and line items as structured fields. The output is checkable against the piece of paper in your hand, it costs about a third of a cent per receipt, and when it is wrong you see it immediately because the total does not match.
That is almost the opposite of writing. There is a ground truth, the human is the verifier rather than the audience, and a wrong answer is cheap to spot. I agree with the essay about prose, and I think the reason has less to do with AI than with whether anything exists to check the output against.