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.
I really did like the author's framing there, but I think there is a different, simpler way to put it:
Why would you think that asking someone else (that is, another human) to write something (and then reviewing it) is the same thing as writing it yourself?
You may trust the other writer's opinions and knowledge, but it will not have the same tone, structure, word choice, understanding, or narrative flow as it would if you were to write it yourself.
And when it's an LLM, you should not trust it's "opinions" and "knowledge", because it does not have either of those things. The appearance of those things is just that, an appearance.
Except that there are such things as speech writers, whose job is literally to write prose in the voice of the person who’s going to read it.
And there are countless other jobs out there where people are the “voice” of another party. From those who manage social media presence, to PR firms, to copyrighters, all who put statements out on others behalf.
There was already an industry of professionals whose job it was to have others write things on our behalf, and that existed long before LLMs were a thing. What LLMs did was make that that service available much more cheaply.
Speech writers do not write in the voice of someone else, they create the public image of say a president who is inarticulate and make them seem polished and articulate, if anything they lend their voice and ideas to someone else. That’s why they are hired.
And no LLMs are not producing ‘the same thing’ as a speechwriter. If you are unable to tell the difference I’d suggest doing some a lot more reading of human books. LLMs produce stultifying pablum without coherence or style.
> Speech writers do not write in the voice of someone else, they create the public image of say a president who is inarticulate and make them seem polished and articulate, if anything they lend their voice and ideas to someone else.
Obama, former president of Harvard Law Review, is far from inarticulate and unpolished. The truth you are ignoring is that speechwriters free the speaker from long hours of speechwriting, analogous to a chauffeur enabling them to work while commuting (chauffeurs are not principally used by incompetent drivers).
Every politician - even Trump - reviews their speeches and edits to better fit their desired goals. Speechwriters are principally labor-savers.
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.
kelnos · · focus · HN ↗
Why would you think that asking someone else (that is, another human) to write something (and then reviewing it) is the same thing as writing it yourself?
You may trust the other writer's opinions and knowledge, but it will not have the same tone, structure, word choice, understanding, or narrative flow as it would if you were to write it yourself.
And when it's an LLM, you should not trust it's "opinions" and "knowledge", because it does not have either of those things. The appearance of those things is just that, an appearance.
hnlmorg · · focus · HN ↗
And there are countless other jobs out there where people are the “voice” of another party. From those who manage social media presence, to PR firms, to copyrighters, all who put statements out on others behalf.
There was already an industry of professionals whose job it was to have others write things on our behalf, and that existed long before LLMs were a thing. What LLMs did was make that that service available much more cheaply.
grey-area · · focus · HN ↗
And no LLMs are not producing ‘the same thing’ as a speechwriter. If you are unable to tell the difference I’d suggest doing some a lot more reading of human books. LLMs produce stultifying pablum without coherence or style.
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Obama, former president of Harvard Law Review, is far from inarticulate and unpolished. The truth you are ignoring is that speechwriters free the speaker from long hours of speechwriting, analogous to a chauffeur enabling them to work while commuting (chauffeurs are not principally used by incompetent drivers).
Every politician - even Trump - reviews their speeches and edits to better fit their desired goals. Speechwriters are principally labor-savers.