Even if you don't want style advice from an LLM (I generally don't, not for blogging), for a technical blogger "please check this post for factual accuracy" is a good way to not look like an idiot. Often it complains about hyperbole, which I tend to ignore since there's no point blogging unless you have some firm opinions, but on at least one occasion it pointed me towards some documentation that undermined my entire post - and led to a much better one a week later once I'd processed and applied that new information. Thanks, LLM.

I fear in the future people will read even less because of how often people cheap out and use AI to write. I know the author of this article tells you never to use a single word it suggests, however I still, while reading, am checking for any amount of AI used. This makes reading less enjoyable, and even a bit stressful.

If you can't spend the time to write it, why should anyone read it?

Everything I post is from my own finger tips, only to get a reply from someone using a bot. I'm tired.

> Present the original and new writing to the model and ask it which is better.

LLMs have absolutely terrible taste when it comes to writing. I don't find their feedback useful at all, beyond trivial spelling/grammar mistakes, which you don't really need an LLM for in the first place.

Proofreading is all you need.

Edit: I do sometimes ask an LLM for a fact-check, though.

undefined

Indeed. I have been experimenting with using frontier models for creative writing.

Using adversarial models to evolve ideas. I have a whole novel of material, and the feedback has indeed been useful. But the actual novel? Not even AI models like their own writing once you give the simple prompt of "account for model sycophancy".

The resulting structure and plot beats are good with AI as copy editor. Only the least discerning reader might not care or notice the actual non-human writing. And hey - maybe those are your readers. Probably not.

Can we all appreciate for a moment the sci-fi dystopia which snuck up on us all? I just used to phrase: " non-human writing". 50 years ago, that would send a chill up your spine.

I've seen this in action as well. The biggest value by far is seeing the overused phrases and tics in your writing style. The prompt I like is to tell it to highlight and flag passive voice and run ons since those are my major pain points. I can also tell when its getting out of "real" advice since it'll offer the same "trim 10-15%". Also important to tell it to highlight specifics otherwise it'll give vague editorial advice that isn't anchored. Another fun exercise is to submit other authors writing as well. Say a short story from a magazine. Some of the edits are legit, but do it enough times and you'll start to see the same generic writing advice gets applies to just about any input.

another iteresting thing models can do is to highlight and notice themes and motifs in a piece. I find that helpful when thinking about a piece of work. Might be obvious ones, sometimes it can be subtle themes. Good for stirring your own brain.

This article was so much better than what I though it would be

Does anyone know about "Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace" ? Seems like an interesting book

undefined

For commit messages and other technical writing, I use a "narrative coherence" checklist to help ensure that a change is clear and understandable:

- Establish a single thesis an external reviewer could recover from the diff.

- Unify vocabulary across code, comments, tests, and commit message.

- Use the same vocabulary consistently to refer to the same concepts.

- Keep every hunk that serves the thesis; consider the removal or deferral of the rest.

- Introduce abstractions at the point of need.

- Align tests to narrate the same story as the implementation.

- Reconcile the commit message and the diff.

- Order changes expositorily, not chronologically.

- Explain what the change does and why. Do not explain the details of the development process.

- Prefer to edit subtractively.

- Recompile and run all relevant tests after edits.

- Iterate.

I’ve used llms in two ways while writing fiction. First I’ll have a story idea and use the llm to explore what has come before that may be related; then I’ll go read some stuff. This has worked great for seeing where my ideas fit and flushing them out. Second I’ll describe settings or plot devices and use the llm to brainstorm consequences or further ideas. This fails miserably. The llms suggestions are devoid of creativity. This is all moot though because I’m really not a writer, I’ve just always thought I might like to be one someday.

At one point in my graduate college studies, I tutored qualified (DEI) undergrads 'for free' (for them) as part of a work-study program which paid me a bit for that work.

OTOH, an AI could not have qualified as such a student. But even if it did, before we began I would certainly bargain for considerably more than work-study tutoring paid.

> use them like a copyeditor rather than a ghostwriter

This is what you need to know. Seriously, after 25 years in news (writing), you realize that you need “second eyes”, not the first hands.

This is similar to how I've come to use them but it's focused too much on the mechanics or writing. I've found them more valuable at role-playing as a specific profile of reader and asking it how they would receive the arguments advanced by the writing and what counterarguments they could present. After some rounds of this process, you either close all the gaps in the argument or realize it's not a strong one.

If English is your second language and you intent to write in your mother tongue, my advice is to use English to communicate with the LLM.

This makes Rule 1 straightforward ("You may not use a single word an LLM suggests to you") and helps avoid the horrible feeling that the machine is taking over your personal voice.

undefined

It's darkly amusing that while the author advises us not to let LLMs pick our words, their post includes this chunk of AI slop:

"Those rethinks are load-bearing parts of your voice. Readers won’t put their fingers on what’s wrong, but they’ll sense that you’ve become artificially-flavored."

The metaphor at the start is AI-like weirdness too: "without pasteurizing and jacking it with corn syrup." Pasteurising is good, corn syrup is bad - what the heck am I supposed to make of it? It's nonsense.

It may even have been handwritten by the author, but it's slop nonetheless.

You may be telling yourself that you're disciplined and you're just using the LLMs for review. But while you're reading their output, the slop makes its way directly into your brain anyway - and then it drips out into your writing.

"Those rethinks are load-bearing parts of your voice."

Loved the (possibly not deliberately ironic) use of the LLM'S favourite analogy, load-bearing.

Nice wee article though. I particularly agree with "Don’t take all of the model’s copyediting advice." I've been using LLMs to review teaching material and often it just doesn't get the point of teaching. It's good for prompting reflection on your writing but it's still an idiot savant.

> How to Write with an LLM

TLDR: Don’t.

Ironically, "load-bearing" appears in the main text of the article that says never to use a single word the LLM suggests. Womp womp.