I find that the most respected writing about AI has very few signs of being written by AI. I'm guessing that's because people in the space are very sensitive to the signs and signal vs. noise.
And because people writing anything worth reading are using the process of writing to form a proper argument and develop their ideas. It’s just not possible to do that by delegating even a small chunk of the work to AI.
I found it useful to preface with
* this section written by me typing on keyboard *
* this section produced by AI *
And usually both exist in document and lengthy communications. This gets what I wanted across with exactly my intention and then I can attach 10x length worth of AI appendix that would be helpful indexing and references.
> attach 10x length worth of AI appendix that would be helpful indexing and references.
Are references helpful when they're generated? The reader could've generated them themselves. References would be helpful if they were personal references of stuff you actually read and curated. The value then would be getting your taste. References from an AI may well be good-looking nonsense.
loading story #47477986
I agree wholeheartedly, I don’t see any balance in the effort someone dedicated to generating text vs me consuming it. If you feel there’s further insight to be gained by an llm, give me the prompt, not the output. Any communication channel reflects a balance of information content flowing and we are still adjusting to the proper etiquette.