haha interesting - the article is 99% written by me, but i had gemini review it and sharpen up the send off because it felt weak.
I guess this goes to show that even a subtle touch of an LLM can undermine authenticity.
edit: i've removed that line. I don't like to edit articles after publish (call me old fashioned, but i try to be honest and transparent), in this case though the line adds nothing and your call-out has taught me a good lesson: shit human writing is better than "good" AI writing.
I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with this. To the critiques I would say; this is the world we live in now. There are LLMs capable of essentially perfect writing skills. We need to get used to seeing a lot more content either written by or finished by LLMs.
The best practise for writing docs with LLMs in my opinion, which you have done, is to write as much as you can first then feed that into an LLM for context, and then work with the LLM to finalise it. Maybe half the time is spent writing and half the time is spent going back and forward polishing the doc.
Finally I think it’s important to give the LLM very clear writing guidelines based on your own writing style. I did this by feeding Claude around 20 of my handwritten docs and asked it to analyse my writing style and then add thy to its Claude.md. After a free round of iterations you can get great results!
Good advice. After seeing the capability of the skills for frontend design by impeccable crew ( https://impeccable.style ) i am tempted to make my own `/blog-polish` skill or similar
the simple answer would be that "AI is in use everywhere"
Though I'd love to see an analysis of pre-gpt writing to see if it was more prevalent than we remember but lacked the acute sensitivity to it.
There's also the potential that AI started it but people read AI stuff and organically propagate AI tropes in their own words because it's part of the writing they consume.
100% feels like a false flag under child protection. parental controls have been around for a very long time, it is up to the parents to do this, not the government or government bodies.
I am yet to ever see any UK Government petition make any tangible difference to policy. If the Digital ID Petition with over 2.9 million signatures[0] didn't sway them, I sadly don't think this one will change anything either.
Oh, I completely agree with you. What does help however is if the back benchers get a ton of emails about this and pressure the government from the inside – when Boris Johnson was teetering on the edge the volume of correspondence MPs received apparently made a big difference in encouraging him to be shoved out.
I'm going to try to meet with my MP the next time I'm back in the UK and hopefully get some sort of sense talked with them...
Choosing autism speaks as a place for support and advocacy is an interested and, in my opinion, a short-sighted choice. They don't hold a strong track record or convey an image of trust towards the ND community. Even when they tried to improve their brand image, their funding mostly going into advertisement and their current choices such as comparing Autism to Cancer and stating that it is a hopeless condition (At least changing away from the autism is curable stance they had) are less than ideal.
reply