| ▲ | cortesoft 2 hours ago |
| I really like the point I read somewhere the other day; instead of sending me the AI output, just send me the prompt you used to generate it. That is the only part that contains only the information you are trying to convey. The rest is just guesses flowery language added, and it confuses the actual message being sent. |
|
| ▲ | supermatt an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| How is this? https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d |
| |
| ▲ | miyoji an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, the original prompt is 10000% better than the AI output, because it shows me exactly how much the author (you?) cares about this topic and how much effort they're willing to put into communication, which is barely any at all. | | |
| ▲ | supermatt an hour ago | parent [-] | | > which is barely any at all Clearly you either didn't read it, misunderstood it, disbelieved it, or just DGAF :) | | |
| ▲ | swatcoder an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | What I read is that you're self-conscious about your writing style and that you find the LLM processed version of your own stream of thoughts to be helpful to you yourself. Which is fine for you, but doesn't change that many people can get more insight out of your original text than they can out of the generated adaptation, and can do so with more interest and less fatigue. And indeed, you don't have to care about that. But one would think that in publishing or sharing your writing at all, you do in fact have some investment in whether people receive those insights that you have. Otherwise, you could just keep the AI writings to yourself in the first place. | |
| ▲ | minimaxir an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Many different people in this HN submission have given you similar feedback: given that, you should consider that your priors are not correct. | | |
| ▲ | qarl2 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It could also be that this site has created its own hive-mind environment. Which is especially and bizzarely intolerant of AI at the moment. I don't want the prompt - I may not have access to an LLM to evaluate it. The entire argument here is misguided, and deeply angry about AI. It's equivalent to answering a question with "google it". Which is often times just plain rude. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | miyoji an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, I did read it, and I think I understood it. My summary in my own words is that you find that LLMs can massage your writing and reduce the stress of communication. Did I believe it? Well... You have an account on HN dating back to 2013 with over 6000 comment karma, you clearly didn't have trouble communicating like a normal person for a decade on this website before the advent of LLMs. Your spelling and grammar in posts predating LLMs are also far better than what you've produced in this prompt, so I'm tempted to think that you're exaggerating your inability to communicate normally to make a point. But even so, the original wall of text communicates the point much more strongly and sincerely than the LLM trash. | | |
| ▲ | supermatt 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I haven't always struggled so much, but my ability to read has severely diminished over the past decade. I find it much easier to communicate in short form. It has always been disproportionately time-consuming for me to write though. It is the articulation of ideas that I struggle with and so I usually edit my comments multiple times. And to get rid of some of the more stupid stuff I say. To be fair, that word salad would read more like this comment if I gave it some time, but it would take many hours to produce a simple post with the same readability as the LLM. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | an0malous 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you intentionally sandbagged your prompt by dragging on and being repetitive and it’s still a better read than the LLM output. There’s also a difference between “please edit my writing” and “please generate a blog post from these bullet points.” | |
| ▲ | stordoff 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | FWIW, I tried to read the AI version first, and found myself bouncing back to the prompt multiple times. The AI version just reads as flat, impersonal, and as if it has had all the corners sanded off (both in style and content). The prompt conveys much more about what _you_ want to say, and is easier to read without zoning out and losing interest. If you must use AI in this way, I'd tell it to take a _much_ lighter touch. It cleans things up without washing away the personality of your writing. ChatGPT example: > adjust the following for spelling and grammar, making MINIMAL alterations to the original wording and content. do NOT rewrite, just clean up what is already there: [post] https://chatgpt.com/share/6a8382b9-3620-83eb-b17e-4397aee5ad... | | |
| ▲ | supermatt 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Huh, thats really interesting... That sounds a lot better than I expected, and is readable enough for me to edit it. Thank you :) |
| |
| ▲ | swatcoder an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure enough, the prompt is infinitely more expressive and interesting. AI writing is like the voice anonymizer they'd use in TV interviews when they wanted to hide the identity of the person speaking. The output is more adherant to convention but likewise more impersonal and exhausting, and when it's used by too many people it's so indistint that it becomes noise. It might look good to you in isolation, because you're excited to see that it says what you meant to say without the features you feel self-conscious about, but to others it just reads like yet another sample of the same old AI slop. The message gets entirely lost behind that. |
|
|
| ▲ | raincole an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The prompt is the whole chat history. It would be like 10~20 times longer than the final output if the author gave the slightest amount of shit. |
| |
| ▲ | Alpha3031 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The author giving the slightest amount of shit seems like a big assumption to make, but ultimately even it that were the case I don't see why I would prefer what I read to be curated in that specific manner (having access only to what has been filtered past some black box). As opposed to being able to choose what to read from the whole chat history. |
|
|
| ▲ | jampa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I used to do that, but the person could be bad at prompting too (which is often why the LLM couldn't give a good answer in the first place). So the polite version I use now is: "Hey, just to get a bit more context, what was the original problem you were trying to solve?". That gets them to distill their own problem a bit further. |
|
| ▲ | coderatlarge an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i personally prompt to produce a baseline then re-prompt to tweak then re-re-prompt to re-order, then re-re-re-prompt to expand certain parts, then re-re-re-reprompt to properly cross reference internally , then re-re-re-re-reprompt to proof read and add missing references . so there is no single prompt that produced the document and if i were to start from scratch the path would likely be different. |
|
| ▲ | m132 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I like how some people take offence at that |
|
| ▲ | snmx999 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not all AI content was created with one prompt. |
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Many people use many prompts and revisions or prompts or combinations or human and AI writing. Its not a simple as just making a single prompt and copying the output as the blog post. |
| |
| ▲ | pelotron an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They could prompt the AI to scroll up and copy their previous prompts for them. | |
| ▲ | rsalus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, by the time my thought is fully formed I've gone through an entire conversation. |
|
|
| ▲ | imadeanaccountj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | iwontberude 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | onion2k 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That implies you think the output of an LLM is only a rewording of the prompt, and that it doesn't add anything from it's corpus of training data. That's obviously untrue. |
