Counterpoint.

People our so tired of sensational intros and baiting questions which bury the actual lede up to the point where you discover it requires an annual subscription to find out the actual answer, that now it's actually counterproductive to start with an interesting "question".

It's facts first or gtfo. Prove to me that I'm not going to waste my time until you deliver what you promised, by delivering enough of that relevant background up front, otherwise I don't have time for your shenanigans.

> We could easily have a 2026 LLM deliver high-quality editing advice to fix this up extensively, but it would still be mediocre.

This seems to suggest that a human needs to be in the creative loop, but that could be short sighted. LLM training has humans in the loop which optimize for not being bored. That's a reason for LLM texts typically being recognizeable because at the current stage they are a little too simplistically flashy. But give it a few iterations and the machine will excel humans at catching their attention, i.e., making them care.

As others wrote: Tiktok is already excellent at that. While the content in there still has humans in the loop, the choice what to show to whom and when is already entirely mechanical.

Suppose you fed this article into an LLM, along with whatever other documents you had, and asked it to come up with some good candidates for opening sentences? And picked one, and let it take it from there?

I assume you'd get a mess, but it might be an interesting mess.

I felt like the movie Marty Supreme completely failed to make me care about the main character until the final act where the filmmakers had to pull out all the big easy stops to force me to care about him. A third of the way in to the movie I was wondering if it was going to be explained at any point why I should be interested in this guy or care about his difficult and fairly unremarkable personality. A lot of the time it seems as if creatives assume that if you’re watching/reading/engaging with their movie/book/artwork then you already care enough to care.

What I find extremely off-putting and overused is the pattern of making you care about an article by saying something about the person being interviewed, usually related to the interview itself. Think "he was a balding man[...] drinking his matcha latte[...]" It's always something which has zero bearing on the situation in question.

Whenever I see this, I immediately turn to cmd-a + cmd-c + `pbpaste | llm 'summarize this'`

This insight is what caused the rise of the clickbait headline and its predecessors in eras past. You need a hook or there's no point reading the tale.

Adrian Wooldridge (the Economist) in "Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World" argues, rather successfully IMO, that what made Venice the maritime super-power was meritocracy. Indeed, he argues, that the fall of the Venitian empire came swiftly when the Doge was forced to place only Venitians (birthright) to top positions, instead of the most "capable". Hence the available talent pool shrunk.

The book makes for a fine read IMO: https://www.amazon.com/Aristocracy-Talent-Meritocracy-Modern...

ps. this book came out as a response to Michael Sandell's "The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?" which was a best seller at the time.

I found it really ironic that the author started with something attention-grabbing about a topic completely unrelated to his point, but then made a series of such mundane statements to begin his own writing that I didn't care enough to go past his first screen. He didn't make me care about why I should make people care.

The hook was great, but article was mediocre. I glazed over at the mention of LLMs in the second paragraph, skimming the article through to the end didn't improve things.

If your readers now care, don't disappoint them...

I'm beginning to think that origin stories are an underrated way to find these angles. Like why exactly did you start thinking about this topic. I guess the recipe bloggers were on to this with their long rambles about where they first tried this dish (albeit it may have been for SEO too...)