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?

▲

layer8 4 hours ago | parent [-]

TFA is about having AI do the writing, not about having AI suggest editorial improvements. The parent comment argues against having the AI write the text and having the human merely review it, not against having the AI review human-written text (and the human deciding which of the AI’s suggestions they might apply).

See also this existing comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49768564, which I completely agree with and which is complementary to the above root comment.

▲

onraglanroad 4 hours ago | parent [-]

True, but I was responding to the comment rather than the article.

▲

layer8 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I expanded my comment since.

▲

onraglanroad 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure , but that seems like you've agreeing that an AI suggestion is as good as an editor suggestion.

What do you see as the difference?

▲

layer8 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t see any conflict with what the root comment wrote. There are probably some differences between human and AI editorial suggestions that could be discussed, but that wasn’t the topic here.

	▲	onraglanroad 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was the topic I was discussing with the person I replied to. If you want to discuss something else just let me know.