Global Warning/Climate Change

[Szdfan]

Again, if you trust the LLM. My observation is that LLMs "prefer" certain styles of writing that aren't necessarily better communication styles, and they miss a lot of nuance.

They can smooth out writing to the point that it's bland.

I like AI for editorial work. It can take a bad piece of writing and basically do the level of editing that you ask. For example, one of the things I edit is inmate-written poetry that has been chosen for publication. It's often really badly written, with illogical words used just because they rhyme. I put a problematic stanza into an AI query asking for suggested changes, and it often suggests replacing just a word or two that makes the poem work a lot better. It would take me much longer flipping through a thesaurus or rhyming dictionary to come up with ideas.

We've done the same with entire articles that had a good point but were just poorly written overall. One we used needed so much extensive revision, much of it made using AI suggestions, that we asked the author if he wanted his name on it. I believe we credited him "and magazine staff" as the authors.

You can ask for a light edit, or you can ask for a piece to be transformed. When you're publishing an author, you really don't want to do the latter. At some point it is no longer their work.

Exactly. I've used it for feedback with my own writing, but I also severely limit the amount of changes I accept from it. I mostly look for non-grammar type feedback and rely on humans for that. AI is super controversial in publishing right now -- a number of publishers refuse to publish anything that has any AI involvement at all, even if it's just for brainstorming. A lot of this is because they were overwhelmed with people submitting AI slop. I expect attitudes might change in the next five to ten years though.

[ken_sylvania]

I love AI for editing tasks,
It polishes prose with the skill that I ask.
Take inmate poems, picked for the page,
Often rough, with rhymes that clunk and engage.
Words thrown in, just to match a sound,
Logic lost, where sense should be found.
I feed a stanza to AI’s keen eye,
It swaps a word, makes the verse fly high.
No thesaurus flip or rhyme book slog,
AI’s quick fix clears the fog.

Whole articles, too, with points that shine,
But clumsy words drag down the line.
One piece we saved needed such a mend,
AI’s suggestions helped it bend.
Reworked so much, we had to inquire,
“Author, your name, or staff to inspire?”
We credited both, a shared byline,
For the work transformed, yet still divine.

A light touch edit, or a total rewrite,
AI adapts to the depth you invite.
But with authors’ work, you tread with care,
Too much change, and their voice isn’t there.

[mike]

I love AI for editing tasks,
It polishes prose with the skill that I ask.
Take inmate poems, picked for the page,
Often rough, with rhymes that clunk and engage.
Words thrown in, just to match a sound,
Logic lost, where sense should be found.
I feed a stanza to AI’s keen eye,
It swaps a word, makes the verse fly high.
No thesaurus flip or rhyme book slog,
AI’s quick fix clears the fog.

Whole articles, too, with points that shine,
But clumsy words drag down the line.
One piece we saved needed such a mend,
AI’s suggestions helped it bend.
Reworked so much, we had to inquire,
“Author, your name, or staff to inspire?”
We credited both, a shared byline,
For the work transformed, yet still divine.

A light touch edit, or a total rewrite,
AI adapts to the depth you invite.
But with authors’ work, you tread with care,
Too much change, and their voice isn’t there.

beauteous

[Soloist]

In my experience, LLM’s are not able to process documents. They can do small pieces but tend to break down substantially on anything longer. They also miss the nuance and writing style a person actually uses.

In my experience working with them, chatGPT would make mistakes on intent of the user and completely dropped whole sections of the editing although if you submitted small bits and work through it, you could eventually produce something, but you had no real way of knowing if it was better than your own work done a little more methodically to begin with.

Claud on the other hand could take a large document and still work with it because of the context limit and how it handles external documents and it actually is generally better at writing with a voice, but it’s still a very limited.
I find trying to use LLM‘s for grammar is risky at best… my wife is 10 times better

[ohio jones]

beauteous

But can it do iambic pentameter?

[Robert]

People are flooding us with all kinds of information and misinformation. They sound so authoritative.

AI is also flooding us with all kinds of information and misinformation. It sounds so authoritative. Is it really that much more reliable than any other source of information? How can we fact check it?

That is why I was arguing with Grok about the information posted. It was only using NOAA sources. NOAA gets it info directly from IPAA. IPAA is very political in its information. I find its source material quite questionable along with relying on consensus. Science does not work from consensus.

And I do think it's helpful to use an LLM to check our posts for sarcasm

I don't need an LLM to tell me I'm using sarcasm. I'm well aware.

Yo también.

[Neto]

Sometimes sarcasm, blame, or ridicule slip into the way we reason. I wonder if that actually weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn’t need those things. And if sources rely heavily on that kind of tone, maybe it’s worth questioning how solid they are.
....

Speaking of sarcasm, I'm reminded of some of the things Paul writes.... And then you have the Prophet Elijah, who made use of ridicule.

[Robert]

Sometimes sarcasm, blame, or ridicule slip into the way we reason. I wonder if that actually weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn’t need those things. And if sources rely heavily on that kind of tone, maybe it’s worth questioning how solid they are.
....

Speaking of sarcasm, I'm reminded of some of the things Paul writes.... And then you have the Prophet Elijah, who made use of ridicule.

"Tell that fox ... "

[temporal1]

Opinion

Jesús Enrique Rosas / The Body Language Guy

Bill Gates has BURIED 'climate change' because of THIS / -12min

[Robert]

Some brutal honesty.