[discreteevent]

I have never used an LLM to write. Writing forces me to think (and I edited the comment a couple of times when writing it which helped me clear up my thinking). "It's a viable way to live and sometimes it's the only way to live" is a personal realization that has taken me some time to understand. You can go back through my comment history to the time before LLMs to check if my style was different then.

[hirako2000]

It says a lot that most readers can't distinguish good writing from something an LLM spat out.

Ray Kroc's genius was to make people forget that you get what you pay for.

[vehemenz]

False equivalency. If you had the humility to run your own writing through an LLM first, it would have caught it. Just saying.

Not picking on you in particular, but most of the anti-AI crowd can’t present their case compellingly and have an utter lack of humility.

[vehemenz]

If you run your writing through an LLM, it can poke holes in your argument, organize your ideas better, or point out that your tone is hostile/dismissive. It doesn’t need to be a replacement for writing or thinking, especially if you’re learning along the way.

[aniou]

So - in that way - LLM will be Your mentor, it will shape Your way of thinking according to algorithms and datasets stuffed into by corporate creators.

Do You really want it?

There is also a second face of that: people are lazy. They wouldn't develop their own skills but rather they would off-load tasks to LLM-s, so their communicative abilities will be fade away.

That's looks like a strong dystopia for me.

[vehemenz]

> LLM will be Your mentor, it will shape Your way of thinking according to algorithms and datasets stuffed into by corporate creators.

How is this mutually exclusive with teaching better than most humans? Part of these "corporate" datasets include deep knowledge of the world's best literature and philosophy, for instance. Why can't it be both?

> Do You really want it?

If I'm in a hurry, don't know where to start, or don't have money for someone to teach me—sure.

> There is also a second face of that: people are lazy. They wouldn't develop their own skills but rather they would off-load tasks to LLM-s, so their communicative abilities will be fade away.

This is a recapitulation of the Luddite argument during the Industrial Revolution. And it's valid, but it has consequences for all technological change, not just this one. There was a world before Google, the Web, the Internet, personal computing, and computers. The same argument applies across the board, and the pre-AI / post-AI cutoff looks arbitrary.

[svieira]

> teaching better than most humans

Ah, so now we get to the "ed tech" question. What is teaching? Is there a human element to it, and if so, what is it? Or is it something completely inhuman? Or do we need to clarify what meaning of "teaching" we're talking about before we have a discussion?

[patrickmay]

> Part of these "corporate" datasets include deep knowledge of the world's best literature and philosophy

Part of those datasets also include 4chan.

[3form]

All of which are parts of the writing and thinking skillset, no?

[vehemenz]

Right. It can enhance that skillset. Are you suggesting it can’t?

This wouldn’t be a plausible position.

[3form]

Rather that avoiding delegating it to LLM for these tasks helps you practice that skill.

That said, I think it depends how you use it. You can learn from explanations, and you'd better avoid "rewrite this for me and do nothing else" kind of approach.

[vehemenz]

Right, but the LLM can help you practice the skill too. Without the LLM, you're in a self-guided, autodidactical mode. Obviously, that can have its own advantages, but most people—but especially novices—aren't in a position to assess their skill level or their progress. The average person isn't going to magically get better at thinking or writing without formal training, or at least some direction.