zlacker

[return to "Writing with LLM is not a shame"]
1. Curiou+r61[view] [source] 2025-08-24 19:55:34
>>flornt+(OP)
AI prose is mediocre right now. Too verbose, indirect constructions, passive, etc. That being said, it's actually a great editor and can pick out all those issues consistently.

My workflow right now is to use AI for rough draft and developmental editing stages, then switch AI from changing files to leaving comments on files suggesting I change something. It is slower than letting it line/copyedit itself, but models derp up too much so letting them handle edits at this stage tends to be 2 steps forward 2 steps back.

◧◩
2. NicuCa+gf1[view] [source] 2025-08-24 21:01:46
>>Curiou+r61
That's my main criticism as well. Even before we get to the ethical implications of AIs communicating on your behalf without a disclaimer, LLM writing is just poor and making me read through it is disrespectful of my time.

I recently had a colleague send me a link to a ChatGPT conversation instead of responding to me. Another colleague organised a quiz where the answers were hallucinated by Grok. In some Facebook groups I'm in where people are meant to help each other, people have started just pasting the questions into ChatGPT and responding with screenshots of the conversation. I use LLMs almost daily, but this is all incredibly depressing. The only time I want to interact with an LLM is when I choose to, not when it's forced on me without my consent or at least a disclaimer.

◧◩◪
3. acdha+Mv2[view] [source] 2025-08-25 11:21:02
>>NicuCa+gf1
> I recently had a colleague send me a link to a ChatGPT conversation instead of responding to me.

I find this kind of thing interesting anywhere someone is being paid more than minimum wage: a really good way to make your boss think that they can replace you with ChatGPT is for you to perform it at ChatGPT’s level. I do give them points for not trying to hide it, but it really seems shortsighted not to consider that each time you do that, you’re raising the question of why they shouldn’t cut out the middleman.

[go to top]