Comment by tptacek

17 hours ago

Broken record: LLMs are exceptionally useful writing critics if you know how to hold them correctly, but you can't use a single word they suggest to you --- the better the LLM's word choices seem, the more likely the LLM is infecting your voice. Better, by a lot, to prompt the LLM not to suggest any words, but just offer objective critiques.

I see many Youtubers who are certainly still writing their own scripts, but every once in a while you can tell they absolutely used a Claude correction in one place.

IMO, it's still better to not let an AI critique your writing style at all, only the facts and claims you're making against its context / MCPs. Your own writing style is a reflection of your mind's thought process and, especially on forums like this one, is the only way to imbue your ideas with your personality.

  • But what if your mind's thought process on a specific example (or in general…) is downright BAD? I still think AI text critique has its place when you're certain that's the case for whatever you've written. Above a certain quality threshold I'm with you on it.

    • > But what if your mind's thought process on a specific example (or in general…) is downright BAD?

      Then maybe you shouldn't be making Youtube videos about it… ?

Potentially dumb question, but could you expand on how you use LLMs as writing critics? Do you just ask them to flag bad writing? I'm asking because I don't think i'm skilled in writing.

---

Now there's an idea. LLMs may have taken the em-dash from us, but the em-en dash is unknown to Strunk & White and might be human-exclusive for some time yet.

  • Technically, in latex (and what other format is there?) an en-dash is `--` and an em-dash is `---`. So that was just an em-dash. A `-` is a hyphen.

    Us oldies learnt to type these with multiple dashes automatically, as unicode hadn't been invented yet.

  • This arms race leading, somewhat inevitably, to the development of the eminem-dash.

    -- - --

    • ----- .---- ----- ----- .---- ----- ----- ----- ....... ----- .---- .---- ----- .---- .---- ----- .---- ....... ----- .---- .---- ----- .---- .---- ----- .----

      1 reply →