Indeed, driving from Land’s End to John o’Groats is basically the same distance as the longest drive across Texas!

Just ignore it Gwern.

There is a vocal minority here who like to complain about any output generated by AI as if all writing is some sanctified art form rather than a means of communication.

I love your writings. I also found the AI writeup of the project well structured and easy to read.

They are hardly artisans. They are simply the vocal few who repeatedly conflate communication with art simply because the written word can be used for both.

80 t/s - maybe you need to finish reading a sentence before you comment on it?

You literally said “It's not hard”

EDIT: Seems like they post on X. heres a video with some letters being cut out. Its pretty much as you would expect, but with some serious competence! https://x.com/coca1127/status/2088029745221128308

The company number I used to lookup is the one shown in the footer at http://www.netiter.com/

Maybe best to avoid!

EDIT: I don't mean to imply malice - many of us trust our *AAS providers with exactly this daily. But combined with the bankrupt company and overall vibe, I wouldn't be using it.

I don't use one because my aim is to intentionally produce the obviously LLM-sounding output as that is what I find easier to read (although as others have said, I can preserve more of my "voice", if I tweak the prompt somewhat).

You either do not know what derisive means or have worse reading comprehension than I do! /derision

Seriously though - it's literally just talking about the use of an LLM as an accessibility aid and argues that the LLM-assisted writing can still contain human thought. What specifically did you consider contemptuous or mocking?

FYI: https://claude.ai/share/601e313e-905c-4e4a-bb6a-24a1315013e5

> slightly ill intent

There was no ill intent. The content itself described the reason for the process. Even simple comments I write here end up with multiple edits over the hour-long edit window.

If you read my entire comment history you will find I rarely make more than a single observation per comment. Anything more complex becomes too difficult to read and revise.

Cognitive impairment is extremely difficult to understand until you have experienced it. I am particularly lucid this afternoon. That doesn't mean the difficulty is not real.

I have made longer notes using exactly the process you prescribe, but that wasn't necessary for me in this case as it wasn't the most complex of ideas - I just regenerated until it gave me a fair approximation of what I wanted.

And to be fair - even if I had given it follow-up guidance it would still have the LLM "smell". It would receive EXACTLY the same treatment from the anti-llm crowd. Thats pretty much one of the core points of the post (judging the medium ahead of the content).

I think this is pretty much is what they were saying about the provenance being blind. If you are able to deduce the LLM usage through the long-form text then that removes the blindness and objectivity.

I wonder if you view adversarially humanised LLM-generated content in the same light as that which hasn't been obfuscated. I recall seeing some paper with examples posted here a few months ago, where I (and the participants in the study) literally couldn't tell the difference between them and human writing. I have considered using humanisation myself but there is both less control over the output and it (obviously) loses the LLM-like structure that I find so easy to read - and is therefore antithesis to my own objectives.