[mkleczek]

I wasn't clear enough and I agree: art cannot be replaced by LLM (although this is heavy disputed by AI believers). Consuming art also precludes reading summaries generated by LLMs.

My comment was about "utility" texts (this is a context of this discussion, I suppose) - my prediction is that we are going to write shorter and more condensed texts to avoid overhead of LLMs use in generating and summarising text.

[ssivark]

But why should there be two polar opposites: utility & art? Even when reading comments on HN I appreciate a a well written narrative with clarity and cohesion, instead of an assorted stack of bullet points.

The idea is that good writing actually makes you think clearer (both writer & reader); it’s not just a nice to have.

[mkleczek]

If that was the case people wouldn't use LLMs to generate long text only to use the same LLMs to generate short summaries of it.

What I am saying is not that good writing is useless - rather that good writing is _hard_ and people are lazy. There is way more bad writing than good in the world. Bad writing will be replaced by LLMs which does not make sense because it is still bad - and useless.

Good writing is going to stay but since it is hard it is (still) going to be rare.

In the end my hope is that bad (and useless) writing is going to be replaced by short, dense and useful format.

Of course - this begs the question: what constitutes good writing? Pretty good estimation is that a good writing is the one that is - generally speaking - as information dense as possible (ie. there is nothing you can take away from it without loosing some important information). And we are back to square one - it does not make sense to write anything longer than necessary :)