- You can use AI to look through docs and do research.
- You can use AI to structure your argument.
- You can NOT use AI to actually write the prose.
- You can use AI to proofread, especially for how effectively you've communicated.
I don't know, man, that sounds a lot like using AI to write. Your writing probably says "load-bearing" less than Claude's outputs, but I'm not sure it's much less AI.
Reading through docs and doing research: of course. They're like much better search engines in that regard. It would be silly not to use them. Obviously, you need to review their search results against their sources.
Structuring arguments: bad idea. Here you're having the model do your thinking for you. The problems that occur with having it write text recur at a macro level; too-obvious patterns. Readers just want to know what the prompt was.
Writing the prose: obviously not.
Proofreading: I think this works pretty great, as long as you have a structure to how you're doing it. "How do I make this better or sharper": bad, you're having the model structure your arguments for you. But for a predefined rubric of stylistic things --- writing you know how to do, that's just tedious to check manually? Hard to see a downside.
Most people apparently still don't get that using AI for mere proofreading is the same as using it as a mere knowledge base summary tool. Instead of proofreading, have it be adversarial. Let it try to take apart your argument. The latest generation is extremely good at calling out half-truths and circumstantial evidence across many fields. These days I would not dare to put anything in front of a human peer that hasn't passed at least an AI sanity check review.
I don't want an AI's opinion on what I'm writing. I want its assessments against an objective rubric. The whole point is not to have the model weights do your thinking for you.
Giving the compiling evidence of how addictive generative AI is actually, it actually makes perfect sense that people are looking for strategies to excuse their AI-usage. I think no matter the strategy (and given AI is actually as addictive as evidence are suggesting), chances are the usage patterns will all converge to “Just use AI dummy“.
This reminds me a lot of smokers who all have a great strategy beat the nicotine addiction. Only smoke on the weekends when out partying with friends, only smoke to use the extra sense of energy, only smoke to suppress my appetite, go to the gym 5 hours a week to offset the negative health impacts of smoking etc. etc.
In reality most smokers will converge to about a pack a day.
The likes of Sir Walter Scott, Peter Ackroyd, Stephen King, Tim Ferris, Robert Greene, Tucker Max, Catherine Asaro, Neil Gaiman, Charlaine Harris, Nancy Holder etc... all rely heavily on research assistants in various capacities including proofreading.
Honest question - where does an Author like the above place in your authenticity framework?
there's a growing contingent of anti-ai extremists shouting down anything that looks or feels like the thing they hate: actual slop. but there's a missing understanding of where slop really comes from - "you used ai instead of thinking" is just another guess, and mostly wrong since you literally cannot use ai without thinking - the prompts don't write themselves.
slop has been around a lot longer than ai - the contingent needs to realize what it is they hate. instead of "don't use ai to write" it's "don't use ai to write slop" or better: "don't write slop"
No. I hate AI and slop. I hated slop before AI, but with AI slop has proliferated to an unprecedented degree. If AI went away tomorrow, slop would go down with it to 1/1000ths of what it is today.
To be clear, I (the author of the article) do not hate AI. A lot of my current work is focussed on making AI work well.
However, I don't think it's a good idea to replace our own thinking with an AI, and that's what I'm trying to avoid with the way of working proposed in the article.
Structuring your argument is probably something you should do, not an AI. This is the core of what you're trying to convey, and is exactly the type of thing you should be thinking through.
Of course, this is different than having the argument ready and using an AI to make it read a little better, which at that point, is just details.
- Brainstorming with AI is fine, but it takes skill to use it as food for thought, rather than as a source of answers.
- Do NOT structure your blog post with AI. Once the structure is there, it is almost impossible to humanize it.
- Do NOT use it for writing a draft. Same as above. A few times I did it, and ended up rewriting from scratch. Unsloppification is hard.
- AI for proofreading is wonderful. But I always prompt with "only fix grammar mistakes, do not change the style" and actually look at all changes. If not kept in check, it too eagerly homogenizes style.
trjordan · · focus · HN ↗
- You can use AI to look through docs and do research.
- You can use AI to structure your argument.
- You can NOT use AI to actually write the prose.
- You can use AI to proofread, especially for how effectively you've communicated.
I don't know, man, that sounds a lot like using AI to write. Your writing probably says "load-bearing" less than Claude's outputs, but I'm not sure it's much less AI.
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
Structuring arguments: bad idea. Here you're having the model do your thinking for you. The problems that occur with having it write text recur at a macro level; too-obvious patterns. Readers just want to know what the prompt was.
Writing the prose: obviously not.
Proofreading: I think this works pretty great, as long as you have a structure to how you're doing it. "How do I make this better or sharper": bad, you're having the model structure your arguments for you. But for a predefined rubric of stylistic things --- writing you know how to do, that's just tedious to check manually? Hard to see a downside.
sigmoid10 · · focus · HN ↗
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
spencerflem · · focus · HN ↗
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
kaonwarb · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
runarberg · · focus · HN ↗
This reminds me a lot of smokers who all have a great strategy beat the nicotine addiction. Only smoke on the weekends when out partying with friends, only smoke to use the extra sense of energy, only smoke to suppress my appetite, go to the gym 5 hours a week to offset the negative health impacts of smoking etc. etc.
In reality most smokers will converge to about a pack a day.
piltdownman · · focus · HN ↗
Honest question - where does an Author like the above place in your authenticity framework?
gfody · · focus · HN ↗
slop has been around a lot longer than ai - the contingent needs to realize what it is they hate. instead of "don't use ai to write" it's "don't use ai to write slop" or better: "don't write slop"
runarberg · · focus · HN ↗
pbakker · · focus · HN ↗
However, I don't think it's a good idea to replace our own thinking with an AI, and that's what I'm trying to avoid with the way of working proposed in the article.
satisfice · · focus · HN ↗
Never, never, do that!
I draft all my own text that anyone will ever read as “that’s James Bach talking to me.” I want no one to be able to credibly question that.
But of course, writing is more than merely drafting the text. As I draft, I write about ideas that other people or AI may have helped me come to.
pbakker · · focus · HN ↗
Of course, this is different than having the argument ready and using an AI to make it read a little better, which at that point, is just details.
stared · · focus · HN ↗
- Brainstorming with AI is fine, but it takes skill to use it as food for thought, rather than as a source of answers.
- Do NOT structure your blog post with AI. Once the structure is there, it is almost impossible to humanize it.
- Do NOT use it for writing a draft. Same as above. A few times I did it, and ended up rewriting from scratch. Unsloppification is hard.
- AI for proofreading is wonderful. But I always prompt with "only fix grammar mistakes, do not change the style" and actually look at all changes. If not kept in check, it too eagerly homogenizes style.