[svara]

I think that mostly depends on how good a writer you are. A lot of people aren't, and the AI legitimately writes better. As in, the prose is easier to understand, free of obvious errors or ambiguities.

But then, the writing is also never great. I've tried a couple of times to get it to write in the style of a famous author, sometimes pasting in some example text to model the output on, but it never sounds right.

[datsci_est_2015]

> I think that mostly depends on how good a writer you are. A lot of people aren't, and the AI legitimately writes better.

Even poor writers write with character. My dad misspells every 4th word when he texts me, but it’s unmistakably his voice. Endearingly so.

I would push back with passion that AI writes “legitimately” better, as it has no character except the smoothed mean of all internet voices. The millennial gray of prose.

[surfacedetail]

Oh god no, trust me, I'm an academic. I'd rather read an AI essay than the stuff some of my students write.

[zigzag312]

AI averages everything out, so there's no character left.

Similar thing happens when something is designed by a committee. Good for an average use, but not really great for anything specific.

[bananaflag]

Haskell was a success story of design by committee (please correct me if I'm wrong).

[zigzag312]

A success story by what definition? I cannot judge Haskell as I don't know it well enough.

I should have added "usually". On average when something is designed by a committee the effect is like this, but not always. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. That kind of outcome is not always guaranteed and the result can be good in some cases. In same way, an AI generated content can also sometimes have character.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

[bananaflag]

> A success story by what definition? I cannot judge Haskell as I don't know it well enough.

In the sense that it looks coherent and incorporates a lot of lessons learned over the decades of functional programming.

Design by committee usually fails either by being boring or by becoming a Frankenstein monster made of various contradictory opinions of committee members. Neither is the case with Haskell.

And the only bad design decision that I know of, namely to not make Monad derived from Applicative, was corrected in a future release.

[littlestymaar]

> A lot of people aren't, and the AI legitimately writes better.

It may write “objectively better”, but the very distinct feel of all AI generated prose makes it immediately recognizable as artificial and unbearable as a result.

[aaplok]

It depends how you define "good writing", which is too often associated with "proper language", and by extension with proper breeding. It is a class marker.

People have a distinct voice when they write, including (perhaps even especially) those without formal training in writing. That this voice is grating to the eyes of a well educated reader is a feature that says as much about the reader as it does about the writer.

Funnily enough, professional writers have long recognised this, as is shown by the never-ending list of authors who tried to capture certain linguistic styles in their work, particularly in American literature.

There are situations where you may want this class marker to be erased, because being associated with a certain social class can have negative impact on your social prospects. But it remains that something is being lost in the process, and that something is the personality and identity of the writer.

[Retric]

I find most people can write way better than AI, they simply don’t put in the effort.

Which is the real issue, we’re flooding channels not designed for such low effort submissions. AI slop is just SPAM in a different context.

[andrewflnr]

You may be in a bubble of smart, educated people. Either way, one of the key ways to "put in the effort" is practice. People who haven't practiced often don't write well even if they're trying hard in the moment. Not even in terms of beautiful writing, just pure comprehensibility.

[Retric]

I may be in a bubble of smart people, but IMO AI consistently far worse than many high school works I’ve read in terms of actual substance and coherent structure.

Of course I’ve had arguments where people praise AI output then I’ve literally pointed out dozens of mistakes and they just kind of shrug saying it’s not important. So I acknowledge people judge writing very differently than I do. It just feels weird when I’d give something a 15% and someone else would happily slap on a B+.

[lucyjojo]

you cannot write well if you do not read a lot (you need to develop taste). this disqualifies most people. i included.

[JamesBarney]

My experience has been

(ordered from best to worst)

1. Author using AI well

2. Author not using AI

3. Author using AI poorly

With the gap between 1 and 2 being driven by the underlying quality of the writer and how well they use AI. A really good writer sees marginal improvements and a really poor one can see vast improvements.

[lich_king]

I am really conflicted about this because yes, I think that an LLM can be an OK writing aid in utilitarian settings. It's probably not going to teach you to write better, but if the goal is just to communicate an idea, an LLM can usually help the average person express it more clearly.

But the critical point is that you need to stay in control. And a lot of people just delegate the entire process to an LLM: "here's a thought I had, write a blog post about it", "write a design doc for a system that does X", "write a book about how AI changed my life". And then they ship it and then outsource the process of making sense of the output and catching errors to others.

It also results in the creation of content that, frankly, shouldn't exist because it has no reason to exist. The number of online content that doesn't say anything at all has absolutely exploded in the past 2-3 years. Including a lot of LLM-generated think pieces about LLMs that grace the hallways of HN.

[layer8]

Even if they “stay in control and own the result”, it’s just tedious if all communication is in that same undifferentiated sanded-down language.