Once upon a time the word processor was invented, and it made it so much easier to arrange your words on paper. iIf bits were wrong, you could just delete them, or copy and paste them across pages. It was actually pretty amazing what you could do; especially if you didn't mind dot-matrix type on fan-fold paper. Of course if you wanted to make a better impression, you'd type it on a typewriter, or better yet, hand-calligraph your writing with a fountain pen.
So LLMs allow you to work at the speed of reading, if not faster. So you can try a paragraph here, completely rewrite the tone. Start a chapter in 1PP and just have it rewritten to 3PP. And sofort and so on. The number of new transformations you can do is endless.
What do a lot of people do? Write a one line prompt and show everyone the oneshot result.
Ok fine, sometimes you don't need to write amazing prose. But you can also be like the early writers who adopted the word processor. If you put the same amount of elbow-grease into using an LLM as you did writing before, you can get some pretty cool results.
> Of course if you wanted to make a better impression, you'd type it on a typewriter, or better yet, hand-calligraph your writing with a fountain pen.
Why do people feel the need to invent the past that never existed?
I have never ever seen anyone to type it on a typewriter in order to make a better impression. That was not a thing.
Likewise, the only handwriting for better impression I have seen was in stuff like love letter. It could possibly done also in super high formal situation (diplomacy, school diploma) or some such, but otherwise it was not a thing.
Okay, this is just time/place/situation dependent. I remember typing job applications, that was something that communicated seriousness.
Handwritten pages always signify special care, indeed as you say that’s why you see that in diplomas and such. There was a time when I kept hand written letters going for my close college friends, on good stationary. I think we are just in different situations/places/demographics.
[edit] also I kept my job application rejections (paper mail). These were very instructive as they showed a pattern of rote rejection that made me less discouraged.
For most of the 20th century, ordinary people generally had the option of either handwriting or typing. Starting roughly in the 1980's consumers could get their hands on dot matrix printers, and in the 1990s inkjets and lasers started coming in. (For corporate the timeline shifts a bit earlier) .
Relevant for this conversation, dot matrix printouts were considered "cheap", and people were warned not to submit dot-matrix printouts for things like job applications, formal correspondence, etc.
If you were a kid and you tried to hand in a word processed/printed essay in school, even into the early '90s sometimes, you'd get pushback that's very similar to the AI pushback of today. "How do I know YOU wrote it?", "The computer is doing the work for you". They'd force you to rewrite it, properly, in pen.
>Once upon a time the word processor was invented, and it made it so much easier to arrange your words on paper.
It’s easier to rearrange and rethink and tinker. Hard to imagine now but it was more efficient in the days when you would have to pencil out a memo and have someone type it up, you would make corrections and the final copy would be done in a couple passes. This has been studied, efficiency has actually gone down, in favor of immediacy and direct control.
What it frees you from is organizing your thoughts ahead of time, which takes practice and discipline. Using an LLM is just taking that further, you can avoid organizing your thoughts and ideas a bit more.
See also: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49795122">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49795122 "Socrates vs. the Written Word (2011)"
You nailed it on what I've always wanted to say.
If someone uses LLM to help wording their idea in a way that's easier to understand, I am fine with it as long as they don't copy-paste it verbatim into their blogpost.
I am getting a little ranty here, but the usual LLM-isms like "not this, but that" or "that's the real footnote here" simply add zero value to the text, and I can't imagine anyone who has proofread the LLM-generated text even once will opt to keep those sloppy paragraphs. If I see them, I can't help but to think that the author had oneshotted the text. And it strongly suggests to me that the author has put zero effort into their work.
Agree completely. The problem is not the tool, it's all the pointless filler (or even hallucinations) that the tool generates that people leave in.
I disagree, the problem is the tool. Generating text instead of thinking about what text to use explicitly is not writing, and it's not worthy of someone else reading it.
Fundamental to exchanging ideas is discovering which ideas should be exchanged and how to express them. The process of writing itself is that exercise. If you use a tool to outsource the thinking then you're not thinking.
I definitely think that "not thinking about what you're writing" is a big danger with AI-generated text, but it's not a given. If you generate a block of text and then go through and edit it to better reflect your ideas and voice - that's the thinking process in action. It's also entirely possible to generate slop by manually typing every word - see any corporate communication ever.
You will NEVER be a good to great writer if you use AI to seed your writing and then edit it.
_Everything_ AI generates, is generalized slop. All of your ideas will be boring and derivative. Mediocre writers will be improved, but the best would only have their ability to think dulled.
Just think through it from the perspective that AI is generating art for you instead of writing. What would all art look like if good artists used it for ideas and "edited" it? It would look like generic, derivative shit. A perpetual crutch that the person can never abandon.
Genuine experiment: Do characters "have a color" for you, maybe? [1][2]
1) "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." <- Typed by hand.
2) "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." <- Generated by ai, cut-and-pasted in. [3]
For you, would you classify the former as genuine and the latter as slop?
You'd think I'm being silly, but both yes and no are not unthinkable, and honestly I've actually seen odder arguments in court filings and language standards.
[1] <a href="https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23" rel="nofollow">https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 "What color are your bits"
[2] <a href="https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-your-function/" rel="nofollow">https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-... "what color is your function"
I just fundamentally do not agree with you. If you are editing AI generated text to "better reflect your ideas and voice" you are still not using your ideas or your voice. There's no 'thinking process in action' if you've delegated the hardest part of the task to a text predictor!
It really bothers me that people think it's ok to use AI as the starting point for writing. In my mind, it's the worst thing you can do. It poisons the entire effort, and frankly it's disrespectful to give it to anyone to read. Stop doing it!
There are just times that we stumble upon writer's block.
Personally I have had multiple instances of me knowing the idea I want to express, but utterly failing to articulate it in a way that's understood by most people.
And I unfortunately do not have a human assistant, so for a second opinion on how to articulate the idea better, I turn to an LLM. (Yes, I am using my own idea!) I write something, ask the LLM whether it understood what I said, and make adjustments based on that. In this case, the text is 100% written by me, and the LLM is no more different than a random passer-by giving me advices.
But there are also times when the idea is so complicated that I don't really have a good idea on how to untangle all of that. Ideas that live in your brain as a bunch of abstract concepts, if you can get it. If I were to untangle all of that myself - it's fairly good chance that I'll just leave it for "another day" (read: abandoned). I won't be investing any more thinking into it, LLM or not.
So LLM it is. I dump my ideas (as a bunch of incomprehensible human gibberish ;P) into it, make it make sense of the ideas, generate an ideas-untangled paragraph, which I use as an inspiration (or basis, or template, or whichever word you think suits it) for writing my own text with my own voice and my own style. I was able to continue thinking because the LLM keeps my attention from drifting away!
(I always suspected I have some kinda ADHD, but shrug)
I understand where people are coming from when they reject all forms of LLM assistance in writing, it's just that I hope people don't turn it into a dogma of some sort.
This is generally indicative of not having ideas that are worth reading by others. If you can't formulate the idea then you don't have to write about it, because you don't have an idea.
At the end of the day, if your writing is meant to be read by others then using an LLM is a violation of the social contract between you and your audience.
Well said, the issue being, the form factor of many AI products disincentivises this behaviour. To give an example, using a CLI tool with a frontier model to write a blog (actually fairly common), you have to re-open it in another editor, potentially reformat it or convert MD>DOCX, etc etc. There's a lot of noise and mess, and people naturally tend towards "not bother" and 1-shot some "amazing" prompt (because the value of their elbow grease is disproportionately low, unless they actually have something to say- many do not).
> Start a chapter in 1PP and just have it rewritten to 3PP
I write differently with pen and paper than I do in a word processor. Sometimes one is better than the other. (Word processors are generally better, for me, at editing. One of my favorite uses for LLMs in this way is taking a picture of some text and sketches I’ve made and OCR’ing and rendering them into editable documents.)
Switching from first to third person is in part a grammatical shift. But it’s also a real change in perspective. If you’re only making the motions but not trying to see where the new perspective opens up (or closes) views into what you’re saying, you’re doing copy editing more than writing.
At least right now, this hollowness is part of what makes AI-generated text stand out.
Kim_Bruning · · focus · HN ↗
So LLMs allow you to work at the speed of reading, if not faster. So you can try a paragraph here, completely rewrite the tone. Start a chapter in 1PP and just have it rewritten to 3PP. And sofort and so on. The number of new transformations you can do is endless.
What do a lot of people do? Write a one line prompt and show everyone the oneshot result.
Ok fine, sometimes you don't need to write amazing prose. But you can also be like the early writers who adopted the word processor. If you put the same amount of elbow-grease into using an LLM as you did writing before, you can get some pretty cool results.
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
Why do people feel the need to invent the past that never existed?
Isamu · · focus · HN ↗
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
Likewise, the only handwriting for better impression I have seen was in stuff like love letter. It could possibly done also in super high formal situation (diplomacy, school diploma) or some such, but otherwise it was not a thing.
Isamu · · focus · HN ↗
Handwritten pages always signify special care, indeed as you say that’s why you see that in diplomas and such. There was a time when I kept hand written letters going for my close college friends, on good stationary. I think we are just in different situations/places/demographics.
[edit] also I kept my job application rejections (paper mail). These were very instructive as they showed a pattern of rote rejection that made me less discouraged.
Kim_Bruning · · focus · HN ↗
Relevant for this conversation, dot matrix printouts were considered "cheap", and people were warned not to submit dot-matrix printouts for things like job applications, formal correspondence, etc.
If you were a kid and you tried to hand in a word processed/printed essay in school, even into the early '90s sometimes, you'd get pushback that's very similar to the AI pushback of today. "How do I know YOU wrote it?", "The computer is doing the work for you". They'd force you to rewrite it, properly, in pen.
MarkusQ · · focus · HN ↗
Isamu · · focus · HN ↗
It’s easier to rearrange and rethink and tinker. Hard to imagine now but it was more efficient in the days when you would have to pencil out a memo and have someone type it up, you would make corrections and the final copy would be done in a couple passes. This has been studied, efficiency has actually gone down, in favor of immediacy and direct control.
What it frees you from is organizing your thoughts ahead of time, which takes practice and discipline. Using an LLM is just taking that further, you can avoid organizing your thoughts and ideas a bit more.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
Kim_Bruning · · focus · HN ↗
orangeboats · · focus · HN ↗
If someone uses LLM to help wording their idea in a way that's easier to understand, I am fine with it as long as they don't copy-paste it verbatim into their blogpost.
I am getting a little ranty here, but the usual LLM-isms like "not this, but that" or "that's the real footnote here" simply add zero value to the text, and I can't imagine anyone who has proofread the LLM-generated text even once will opt to keep those sloppy paragraphs. If I see them, I can't help but to think that the author had oneshotted the text. And it strongly suggests to me that the author has put zero effort into their work.
AlexandrB · · focus · HN ↗
duped · · focus · HN ↗
Fundamental to exchanging ideas is discovering which ideas should be exchanged and how to express them. The process of writing itself is that exercise. If you use a tool to outsource the thinking then you're not thinking.
AlexandrB · · focus · HN ↗
timacles · · focus · HN ↗
_Everything_ AI generates, is generalized slop. All of your ideas will be boring and derivative. Mediocre writers will be improved, but the best would only have their ability to think dulled.
Just think through it from the perspective that AI is generating art for you instead of writing. What would all art look like if good artists used it for ideas and "edited" it? It would look like generic, derivative shit. A perpetual crutch that the person can never abandon.
Kim_Bruning · · focus · HN ↗
1) "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." <- Typed by hand.
2) "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." <- Generated by ai, cut-and-pasted in. [3]
For you, would you classify the former as genuine and the latter as slop?
You'd think I'm being silly, but both yes and no are not unthinkable, and honestly I've actually seen odder arguments in court filings and language standards.
[1] <a href="https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23" rel="nofollow">https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 "What color are your bits"
[2] <a href="https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-your-function/" rel="nofollow">https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-... "what color is your function"
[3] Sonnet 5, Medium, Sept 2026.
duped · · focus · HN ↗
It really bothers me that people think it's ok to use AI as the starting point for writing. In my mind, it's the worst thing you can do. It poisons the entire effort, and frankly it's disrespectful to give it to anyone to read. Stop doing it!
orangeboats · · focus · HN ↗
Personally I have had multiple instances of me knowing the idea I want to express, but utterly failing to articulate it in a way that's understood by most people.
And I unfortunately do not have a human assistant, so for a second opinion on how to articulate the idea better, I turn to an LLM. (Yes, I am using my own idea!) I write something, ask the LLM whether it understood what I said, and make adjustments based on that. In this case, the text is 100% written by me, and the LLM is no more different than a random passer-by giving me advices.
But there are also times when the idea is so complicated that I don't really have a good idea on how to untangle all of that. Ideas that live in your brain as a bunch of abstract concepts, if you can get it. If I were to untangle all of that myself - it's fairly good chance that I'll just leave it for "another day" (read: abandoned). I won't be investing any more thinking into it, LLM or not.
So LLM it is. I dump my ideas (as a bunch of incomprehensible human gibberish ;P) into it, make it make sense of the ideas, generate an ideas-untangled paragraph, which I use as an inspiration (or basis, or template, or whichever word you think suits it) for writing my own text with my own voice and my own style. I was able to continue thinking because the LLM keeps my attention from drifting away!
(I always suspected I have some kinda ADHD, but shrug)
I understand where people are coming from when they reject all forms of LLM assistance in writing, it's just that I hope people don't turn it into a dogma of some sort.
duped · · focus · HN ↗
At the end of the day, if your writing is meant to be read by others then using an LLM is a violation of the social contract between you and your audience.
orangeboats · · focus · HN ↗
Frankly speaking, this is simply disrespectful.
alansaber · · focus · HN ↗
Retr0id · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
I write differently with pen and paper than I do in a word processor. Sometimes one is better than the other. (Word processors are generally better, for me, at editing. One of my favorite uses for LLMs in this way is taking a picture of some text and sketches I’ve made and OCR’ing and rendering them into editable documents.)
Switching from first to third person is in part a grammatical shift. But it’s also a real change in perspective. If you’re only making the motions but not trying to see where the new perspective opens up (or closes) views into what you’re saying, you’re doing copy editing more than writing.
At least right now, this hollowness is part of what makes AI-generated text stand out.