[dgxyz]

All LLM output is always dry as fuck quite frankly. At all levels from ideas and concepts through to the actual copy. And that’s dotted with pure excrement.

I think the only reason it’s seen as good anywhere is there are a lot of tasteless and talentless people who can pretend they created whatever was curled out. This goes for code as well.

If I offend anyone I will not be apologising for it.

[samusiam]

> I think the only reason it’s seen as good anywhere is there are a lot of tasteless and talentless people who can pretend they created whatever was curled out. This goes for code as well.

This is an oversimplification.

If you have taste and talent, then the LLM output you get is going to reflect that.

So on the one hand, yes: tasteless and talentless people won't know good output from bad output. On the other hand, people with taste and talent can actually get good output.

[dgxyz]

No it’s not. That’s total rubbish.

You can’t coerce quality creative writing out of it however you attempt to gaslight it into doing so.

[samusiam]

Well you're free to disagree but my experience has been counter to your position. I write both code and research / technical documentation. The quality of what the LLM produces is limited by the quality of ideas I give it initially (mind you, this is just a starting point), and the quality of my review of its output.

[gavmor]

Agreed! No LLM is producing Pynchon, Calvino, Borges, Castaneda, Le Guin, Vonnegut.

[dgxyz]

I think that’s an unfair comparison. It can’t even produce Mills and Boon trash.

[fcarraldo]

But can they produce Tom Clancy or James Patterson?

[lioeters]

Malcollm Gladwell

[BoredomIsFun]

> If I offend anyone I will not be apologising for it.

What you said is simply counterfactual, so no reason to be offended.

[darth_aardvark]

> curled out

This is the kind of understated yet thoroughly disgusting imagery an LLM couldn't come up with on its own, great example.

[dgxyz]

Thank you :)