[orsorna]

What's wild is that with a few minutes of manual editing it would give exponential return. For instance, a lead sentence in your section saying "here's why X" that was already described by your subheading is unnecessary and could have been wholly removed.

[amarant]

Exponential return? This is the front page of HN! What does exponential returns even look like?

Are you saying this post is a few edits away from becoming a New York Times bestseller?

[orsorna]

No, I guess I meant editing to approach a text that doesn't look rushed over (LLM generation is a subset of such poor writings)

But you're right, it did hit the front page, and that says more about my sensibilities not lining up with whoever is voting the article up.

[antonvs]

IME many people aren't very capable of editing their own work effectively. It's why "editor" exists as a profession.

[therealdrag0]

That’s pretty presumptive of how obviously the author could improve it. As someone who writes a lot of docs, I find feedback and preferences varies wildly. They may just have well made it “worse” to your preferences by hand editing it more.

[gzread]

You'd have to have a good idea of how you want the document to read, which is half (or more) of the process of writing it.