The meatiest piece of thinking I’ve read on AI writing. A fun ride. Makes me wonder if the big LLMs are putting concerted effort into increasing the quality and distinctiveness of the *writing* in their default-level outputs during RLHF, or if they are primarily focused on not-wrongness, figuring that users will tune diction and style at the account/project level.
Really enjoyed this piece, guys! Thought-generation and its written expression are now the frontier for models for gaining relevance, within companies and on a wide society basis: my two-cents are that, still, passion, connecting with inner human emotions (lose the bus in the last minute) and aim to create beautiful things (maybe not useful economically) will remain in the human side. Seeing A16z writing on this pictures its relevance!
This is a really fun and thoughtful essay. People want authors for a bunch of reasons: we want to attribute virtue (or blame) for ideas that accrue to the people who create them, we want to connect with authors (“my favorite author”) because it creates community and signals something important about the reader…and because selling push button LLM prose as your own shows you just didn’t want to take the time to write and think it through for yourself. I get it and sympathize with all these positions. I don’t want the world of authors to disappear, and I love watching brilliant (human) writers play with language. But LLMS are a tool, and interacting with and using them to generate ideas or touch points seems not only fine, but basically inevitable. So let’s normalize what you did here: say what you used the tool for, if you used one, and why. That is still an author making a decision about what makes it into a text and why, and being prepared to defend it. If this was a science paper, it would go into the methods section.
The meatiest piece of thinking I’ve read on AI writing. A fun ride. Makes me wonder if the big LLMs are putting concerted effort into increasing the quality and distinctiveness of the *writing* in their default-level outputs during RLHF, or if they are primarily focused on not-wrongness, figuring that users will tune diction and style at the account/project level.
Likewise, if you have any recommendations to continue the topic please share.
Really enjoyed this piece, guys! Thought-generation and its written expression are now the frontier for models for gaining relevance, within companies and on a wide society basis: my two-cents are that, still, passion, connecting with inner human emotions (lose the bus in the last minute) and aim to create beautiful things (maybe not useful economically) will remain in the human side. Seeing A16z writing on this pictures its relevance!
This is a really fun and thoughtful essay. People want authors for a bunch of reasons: we want to attribute virtue (or blame) for ideas that accrue to the people who create them, we want to connect with authors (“my favorite author”) because it creates community and signals something important about the reader…and because selling push button LLM prose as your own shows you just didn’t want to take the time to write and think it through for yourself. I get it and sympathize with all these positions. I don’t want the world of authors to disappear, and I love watching brilliant (human) writers play with language. But LLMS are a tool, and interacting with and using them to generate ideas or touch points seems not only fine, but basically inevitable. So let’s normalize what you did here: say what you used the tool for, if you used one, and why. That is still an author making a decision about what makes it into a text and why, and being prepared to defend it. If this was a science paper, it would go into the methods section.
It is about Entertainment and learning First of all. I do Not Care whether AI or Human sourced, as Long as I get both!