Also I find a very weird that you have no interest in reading it but you have enough time to post this? Why not just ignore it and not post anything at all about not reading it?
Because I want your writing and thinking to get better, and figured leaving a quick comment about why I wasn’t reading was more helpful than strong-downvoting.
Also you just admitted that you didn’t read it so how can you know how much of it was fluff
Skimming, randomly reading a few paragraphs for far less than the 25 minutes it’d take to read the whole thing.
if you dont think this is worth your time that is your choice but the only reason to make a dismissive comment here is to signal that others shouldn’t read this despite you admitting you didn’t read it.
I want your writing and thinking to get better, I also don’t want others’ time to get wasted reading something I expect not to be worth it, if they disagree they can tell me I’m being dumb, but so far nobody has.
Secondarily, surely you agree leaving this comment is more informative about my epistemic position here than strong-downvoting and moving on. People can judge for themselves whether they agree with my position on the post, and whether I’ve engaged enough with it to come to this conclusion. If people agree with you, that a simple skim isn’t strong enough evidence to conclude the post isn’t worth my time to read, then my comment will have no effect on them.
How is that rational? If you want to engage with the content and disagree i am here for it. I plan to respond thoroughly tonight to all messages.
Why should I read something I expect to not gain much from? How is it rational to not tell others why you’re not reading? The author gets to improve their writing & thinking, and everyone else gets to make more informed decisions about how to spend their time.
I think many of these answers you could’ve inferred yourself, so I imagine you are defensive about this. I really do leave this comment because I want you to be better. Is there a way I could’ve rephrased this so you didn’t get defensive?
If you are sincere that you really did just want to help me then ask yourself what are the implications of the way you are communicating yourself. Cuz from where I’m standing all it does is distract from the point I’m actually trying to have whereas you could have private message to me about it and then offered some real critiques and then I could have edited it. From where I’m standing it feels like you’re just trying to create a red herring and distract from the subject that I’m actually thinking is important. If you think the style of my writing is the most important thing then that should be a separate discussion we have entirely in a separate location
What are you talking about? It is not your job to make me a better writer to suit your qualities. If you have genuine specific critiques that I can take to improve my writing I will but this wasn’t critiquing me this was just dismissing it entirely.
To put it more clearly what specific advice besides maybe put in a tldr did you give me?
Also I’m not here to discuss my writing style or whether or not you think it meets your standards I’m here to discuss the content of the ideas I posted. If you’re so pedantic that the style issues are enough to stop you from reading and engaging with those ideas that is fine but I personally do not want to be that kind of person.
If you want to engage with me on the substance of what I am talking about please let me know but I’m not going to continue having a discussion about how I discuss ideas. It’s this exact kind of meta discussion that infuriates me and acts as a red herring to the substance of what I am trying to point to
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.
Because I want your writing and thinking to get better, and figured leaving a quick comment about why I wasn’t reading was more helpful than strong-downvoting.
Skimming, randomly reading a few paragraphs for far less than the 25 minutes it’d take to read the whole thing.
I want your writing and thinking to get better, I also don’t want others’ time to get wasted reading something I expect not to be worth it, if they disagree they can tell me I’m being dumb, but so far nobody has.
Secondarily, surely you agree leaving this comment is more informative about my epistemic position here than strong-downvoting and moving on. People can judge for themselves whether they agree with my position on the post, and whether I’ve engaged enough with it to come to this conclusion. If people agree with you, that a simple skim isn’t strong enough evidence to conclude the post isn’t worth my time to read, then my comment will have no effect on them.
Why should I read something I expect to not gain much from? How is it rational to not tell others why you’re not reading? The author gets to improve their writing & thinking, and everyone else gets to make more informed decisions about how to spend their time.
I think many of these answers you could’ve inferred yourself, so I imagine you are defensive about this. I really do leave this comment because I want you to be better. Is there a way I could’ve rephrased this so you didn’t get defensive?
If you are sincere that you really did just want to help me then ask yourself what are the implications of the way you are communicating yourself. Cuz from where I’m standing all it does is distract from the point I’m actually trying to have whereas you could have private message to me about it and then offered some real critiques and then I could have edited it. From where I’m standing it feels like you’re just trying to create a red herring and distract from the subject that I’m actually thinking is important. If you think the style of my writing is the most important thing then that should be a separate discussion we have entirely in a separate location
What are you talking about? It is not your job to make me a better writer to suit your qualities. If you have genuine specific critiques that I can take to improve my writing I will but this wasn’t critiquing me this was just dismissing it entirely.
To put it more clearly what specific advice besides maybe put in a tldr did you give me?
Also I’m not here to discuss my writing style or whether or not you think it meets your standards I’m here to discuss the content of the ideas I posted. If you’re so pedantic that the style issues are enough to stop you from reading and engaging with those ideas that is fine but I personally do not want to be that kind of person.
If you want to engage with me on the substance of what I am talking about please let me know but I’m not going to continue having a discussion about how I discuss ideas. It’s this exact kind of meta discussion that infuriates me and acts as a red herring to the substance of what I am trying to point to
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.