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.
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.