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 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

bandrami 2 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 an hour 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 an hour 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)