From TFA: "Eric Schwitzgebel writes that . . . There’s a huge cognitive difference between nodding along while reading something and actually productively generating a text. Two reasons: First, once the text is on the page, it’s easy to passively let the approximate word suffice, rather than thinking about word choice in the same effortful, active way we do when generating prose de novo. Second, as I suggested above, I doubt that human beings, even experts, have a good sense of all the factors that shape word choice -- everything they’re being sensitive to. You would have phrased it slightly differently, and even if you don’t know that, or why, a different signal is sent and received."
This is the best articulation I've seen of why simply reviewing and copy-editing does not provide remotely the same value as writing from scratch. I spent a considerable amount of time over the past two weeks reviewing and improving a work document that was the output of an LLM. Given the number of people involved and the final level of effort, I'm firmly convinced that writing it manually would have been faster and resulted in a higher quality product. Getting the wording right matters.
What if I am using Claude as a rubber duck where Claude is the crowdsourced version of all the human thoughts on that topic. It is rerouting all the thoughts ever recorded on that topic through the chatbox to me. Something synergistic could emerge.
I view it as two different things. You need sources of input to stimulate your own thoughts. Historically, talking to others, reading other works, etc. I can see a chatbot as part of that tradition.
But in your own mind, your thoughts are still incomplete. The act of writing them down (or, I imagine, in an oral tradition somehow committing to a specific narration) is very important. IMO, when you delegate that to an LLM, you are not really thinking. It's the same as if you explained your ideas to someone (eg in an interview), and then they ghost wrote the work for you.
Careful consideration is needed. Word selection, grammar, all while keeping the reader in mind. You're sending a message, afterall, so the message should be readable.
And then if you want to tell a message with a different tone, again, you must consider differently.
The considering can be strengthened with exercise.
I can't imagine worrying about signaling as I write: what a huge distraction.
The problem is: this type of thinking and writing takes a lot more time and attention.
How much consideration should you put into a message? It's a personal answer, but also one that can be constrained by time.
Your ideas are based on lots of inputs. Things you read, discussions with others, etc.
But just in your own head they lack clarity. I think this can be deceptive to people, it’s a blind spot. How often have you sat down to talk over some disagreement with someone only to find their own thoughts are a jumble of disjointed ideas that don’t make sense?
patrickmay · · focus · HN ↗
This is the best articulation I've seen of why simply reviewing and copy-editing does not provide remotely the same value as writing from scratch. I spent a considerable amount of time over the past two weeks reviewing and improving a work document that was the output of an LLM. Given the number of people involved and the final level of effort, I'm firmly convinced that writing it manually would have been faster and resulted in a higher quality product. Getting the wording right matters.
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
conmod278 · · focus · HN ↗
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
But in your own mind, your thoughts are still incomplete. The act of writing them down (or, I imagine, in an oral tradition somehow committing to a specific narration) is very important. IMO, when you delegate that to an LLM, you are not really thinking. It's the same as if you explained your ideas to someone (eg in an interview), and then they ghost wrote the work for you.
itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
And then if you want to tell a message with a different tone, again, you must consider differently.
The considering can be strengthened with exercise.
I can't imagine worrying about signaling as I write: what a huge distraction.
The problem is: this type of thinking and writing takes a lot more time and attention.
How much consideration should you put into a message? It's a personal answer, but also one that can be constrained by time.
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
I was talking about the step before that: what are your ideas?
itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
How do you circle an idea in your own mind: your train of thought, in order to express an idea?
Vocabulary to think, and then if we need to share, we use careful to pick words with the reader in mind.
itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
But just in your own head they lack clarity. I think this can be deceptive to people, it’s a blind spot. How often have you sat down to talk over some disagreement with someone only to find their own thoughts are a jumble of disjointed ideas that don’t make sense?