The “sounds like a bunch of it has definitely been written by ChatGPT” from Garrett’s initial response and the “genuine specific critiques that I can take to improve my writing” you are asking about do not go well together. This has inspired me in the background to try to write something more detailed about why (which may or may not yield anything), but a shorter and more actionable take for you is that if you affirmed unambiguously that you have personally followed the Policy for LLM Writing on LessWrong for this post, it might go a long way toward convincing people to give it more of a shot. (Or if it turns out it’s too late for that for this post, it might convince people not to bypass later posts for slop-reputation reasons.) A key paragraph is quoted below, emphasis mine:
A rough guideline is that if you are using AI for writing assistance, you should spend a minimum of 1 minute per 50 words (enough to read the content several times and perform significant edits), you should not include any information that you can’t verify, haven’t verified, or don’t understand, and you should not use the stereotypical writing style of an AI assistant.
Edited to add: if you find this also unconvincing due to being the “kind of meta discussion that infuriates [you]”, I have an alternate and more directly political variant to try, but I’d rather not go for that one first.
The “sounds like a bunch of it has definitely been written by ChatGPT” from Garrett’s initial response and the “genuine specific critiques that I can take to improve my writing” you are asking about do not go well together. This has inspired me in the background to try to write something more detailed about why (which may or may not yield anything), but a shorter and more actionable take for you is that if you affirmed unambiguously that you have personally followed the Policy for LLM Writing on LessWrong for this post, it might go a long way toward convincing people to give it more of a shot. (Or if it turns out it’s too late for that for this post, it might convince people not to bypass later posts for slop-reputation reasons.) A key paragraph is quoted below, emphasis mine:
Edited to add: if you find this also unconvincing due to being the “kind of meta discussion that infuriates [you]”, I have an alternate and more directly political variant to try, but I’d rather not go for that one first.