I gave your post to Claude and gave it the prompt “Dearest Claude, here’s the text for a blogpost I’ve written for LessWrong. I’ve been told that “it sounds a lot like an advertisement”. Can you give me feedback/suggestions for how to improve it for that particular audience? I don’t want to do too much more research, but a bit of editing/stylistic choices.”
(All of the following is my rephrasing/rethinking of Claude output plus some personal suggestions.)
Useful things that came out of the answer were explaining more about the method you’ve used to achieve this, since your bullet-point list in the beginning isn’t detailed enough for anyone to try to replicate the method.
Also notable is that you only have positive examples for your method, which activates my filtered evidence detectors. Either make clear that you indeed did only have positive results, or name how many people you coached, for how long, and that they were all happy with what you provided.
Finally, some direct words from Claude that I just directly endorse:
For LessWrong specifically, I’d also recommend:
Adding a section on falsifiability—how would you know if your approach doesn’t work?
Discussing potential failure modes of your approach
Including more technical details on your methodology (not just results)
Especially, how would you be able to distinguish between your approach convincing your customers they were helped, instead of actually changing their behavior? That feels like the failure mode of most self-help techniques—they’re “self-recommending”.
since your bullet-point list in the beginning isn’t detailed enough for anyone to try to replicate the method.
Wait I’m confused- this is not the purpose of the post
Also notable is that you only have positive examples for your method
The purpose of this post is not advertisement. It’s to discuss one-shots
Especially, how would you be able to distinguish between your approach convincing your customers they were helped, instead of actually changing their behavior?
I gave your post to Claude and gave it the prompt “Dearest Claude, here’s the text for a blogpost I’ve written for LessWrong. I’ve been told that “it sounds a lot like an advertisement”. Can you give me feedback/suggestions for how to improve it for that particular audience? I don’t want to do too much more research, but a bit of editing/stylistic choices.”
(All of the following is my rephrasing/rethinking of Claude output plus some personal suggestions.)
Useful things that came out of the answer were explaining more about the method you’ve used to achieve this, since your bullet-point list in the beginning isn’t detailed enough for anyone to try to replicate the method.
Also notable is that you only have positive examples for your method, which activates my filtered evidence detectors. Either make clear that you indeed did only have positive results, or name how many people you coached, for how long, and that they were all happy with what you provided.
Finally, some direct words from Claude that I just directly endorse:
Especially, how would you be able to distinguish between your approach convincing your customers they were helped, instead of actually changing their behavior? That feels like the failure mode of most self-help techniques—they’re “self-recommending”.
Wait I’m confused- this is not the purpose of the post
The purpose of this post is not advertisement. It’s to discuss one-shots
See above