It's not eliminating toil, it's externalizing it from the writer to the reader.

If writing something is too tedious for you, at least respect my time as the reader enough to just give me the prompt you used rather than the output.

▲

specvsimpl 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In a lot of my AI assisted writing, the prompt is an order of magnitude larger than the output.

Prompt: here are 5 websites, 3 articles I wrote, 7 semi-relevant markdown notes, the invitation for the lecture I'm giving, a description of the intended audience, and my personal plan and outline.

Output: draft of a lecture

And then the review, the iteration, feedback loops.

The result is thoroughly a collaboration between me and AI. I am confident that this is getting me past writer blocks, and is helping me build better arcs in my writing and lectures.

The result is also thoroughly what I want to say. If I'm unhappy with parts, then I add more input material, iterate further.

I assure you that I spend hours preparing a 10_min pitch. With AI.

(This comment was produced without AI.)

▲

jimbokun 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because it’s not totally clear from your comment: what part are you contributing in this process?

▲

bandrami 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Great example. Just give me the links you would give to the LLM. I also have an LLM and can use it if I want to, or I can read the links and notes. But I have zero interest in reading or hearing a lecture that you yourself find too tedious to write.

▲

aeon_ai 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Performative nonsense.

You have less interest in sifting through multiple articles and wiki pages sent to you by a stranger with a prompt than the one paragraph same stranger selected as their curated point.

And pretending like you’d act otherwise is precisely the kind of “anti ai virtue signaling” that serves as a negative mind virus.

AI is full of hype, but the delusion and head in sand reactions are worse by a mile

	▲	bandrami 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Then let him curate it as his central point. If he finds even that too tedious to do, I absolutely have no interest in reading the output of a program he fed the context to (particularly since I also have access to that program)

▲

antonvs 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original comment was saying that the AI would be both the writer now and the reader, in future. That's how the toil is eliminated. Instead of reading or searching through a series of release notes, you can just ask questions about what you're specifically looking for.

> If writing something is too tedious for you, at least respect my time as the reader

"If comprehending something is too tedious for you..."

Seriously, don't jump to indignant rhetoric before you're sure you've understood the discussion.

	▲	funnybeam an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In this scenario the ai _writer _ is redundant. You might as well publish the prompt you were going to give to the writer and have the ai reader consume that directly. Assuming you think any of this is a good idea of course. Personally I wouldn’t trust ai to interpret release notes for anything that i cared about
	▲	bandrami an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What's the point of the AI writer in that use case? Just send your prompt to my AI. And for that matter since prompting is in plain English, why not just send your prompt directly to me, and I'll choose to prettify it through an AI or not as I prefer.

▲

heyethan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]