From TFA: "Eric Schwitzgebel writes that . . . There’s a huge cognitive difference between nodding along while reading something and actually productively generating a text. Two reasons: First, once the text is on the page, it’s easy to passively let the approximate word suffice, rather than thinking about word choice in the same effortful, active way we do when generating prose de novo. Second, as I suggested above, I doubt that human beings, even experts, have a good sense of all the factors that shape word choice -- everything they’re being sensitive to. You would have phrased it slightly differently, and even if you don’t know that, or why, a different signal is sent and received."

This is the best articulation I've seen of why simply reviewing and copy-editing does not provide remotely the same value as writing from scratch. I spent a considerable amount of time over the past two weeks reviewing and improving a work document that was the output of an LLM. Given the number of people involved and the final level of effort, I'm firmly convinced that writing it manually would have been faster and resulted in a higher quality product. Getting the wording right matters.

I really did like the author's framing there, but I think there is a different, simpler way to put it:

Why would you think that asking someone else (that is, another human) to write something (and then reviewing it) is the same thing as writing it yourself?

You may trust the other writer's opinions and knowledge, but it will not have the same tone, structure, word choice, understanding, or narrative flow as it would if you were to write it yourself.

And when it's an LLM, you should not trust it's "opinions" and "knowledge", because it does not have either of those things. The appearance of those things is just that, an appearance.

A workflow I've recently discovered for myself that provides a kind of middle ground: I'll ask the LLM to write a first draft in a language that isn't the one the piece should ultimately be in. Then I'll use the LLM's first draft as a blueprint, to write a first draft myself in the intended target language. This fights my brain's temptation to just shut off, and forces every word choice to actually be mine. Then I'll hand that over to the LLM for editorial suggestions and iterate from there.

Writing is thinking. In many situations where we are called on to write, what is actually needed is thought.

Same flow as translating from your native tongue to a foreign language.

Going from foreign to native is easier than native to foreign. The latter requires completely different brain paths and a lot more understanding of the language to actually get to something correct.

While I mostly agree with you, what is the real difference between an editor saying, 'when generating prose de novo' sounds pretentious to an American audience so let's use 'when writing from scratch' instead, versus an LLM giving the same advice?

Not that it's necessarily better but it's the kind of thing an editor might pick up and so why would you reject the advice if it's a machine giving it rather than a human?