I assume you mean Policy for LLM Writing on LessWrong, thanks for directing me to that, it was interesting to read. It partly boils down to: a human must contribute value-add transformations at some point(s) of the AI writing ‘supply chain’, which I totally agree with.
I think its interesting you mentioned sophistry; I know the dictionary basically flattens it to “deception” but I’ve been interested for a while in its meaning as “style over substance”. In particular, I think much of what makes someone feel subjective epiphany from an idea isn’t usually the idea’s substance, but by shaping its expression into a ‘key’ that fits their particular ‘keyhole’, or knowledge gap. Often this requires phrasing it as some form of “not X but opposite-of-X” (imagine my dismay when AI appropriated this after years of independent thinking on it...). Not to say substance doesn’t matter. I think that often, the process of converting your idea-seed into this “not-but” form will frequently refine it into something clearer and better-scoped than it was before.
I assume you mean Policy for LLM Writing on LessWrong, thanks for directing me to that, it was interesting to read. It partly boils down to: a human must contribute value-add transformations at some point(s) of the AI writing ‘supply chain’, which I totally agree with.
I think its interesting you mentioned sophistry; I know the dictionary basically flattens it to “deception” but I’ve been interested for a while in its meaning as “style over substance”. In particular, I think much of what makes someone feel subjective epiphany from an idea isn’t usually the idea’s substance, but by shaping its expression into a ‘key’ that fits their particular ‘keyhole’, or knowledge gap. Often this requires phrasing it as some form of “not X but opposite-of-X” (imagine my dismay when AI appropriated this after years of independent thinking on it...). Not to say substance doesn’t matter. I think that often, the process of converting your idea-seed into this “not-but” form will frequently refine it into something clearer and better-scoped than it was before.
I think sophistry was originally a philosophical tradition that was heavily criticized for focusing on style over substance.
Interesting points on the not-but form, I’ll try to try it!