This is similar to how I've come to use them but it's focused too much on the mechanics or writing. I've found them more valuable at role-playing as a specific profile of reader and asking it how they would receive the arguments advanced by the writing and what counterarguments they could present. After some rounds of this process, you either close all the gaps in the argument or realize it's not a strong one.

Indeed. I have been experimenting with using frontier models for creative writing.

Using adversarial models to evolve ideas. I have a whole novel of material, and the feedback has indeed been useful. But the actual novel? Not even AI models like their own writing once you give the simple prompt of "account for model sycophancy".

The resulting structure and plot beats are good with AI as copy editor. Only the least discerning reader might not care or notice the actual non-human writing. And hey - maybe those are your readers. Probably not.

Can we all appreciate for a moment the sci-fi dystopia which snuck up on us all? I just used to phrase: " non-human writing". 50 years ago, that would send a chill up your spine.

If English is your second language and you intent to write in your mother tongue, my advice is to use English to communicate with the LLM.

This makes Rule 1 straightforward ("You may not use a single word an LLM suggests to you") and helps avoid the horrible feeling that the machine is taking over your personal voice.

I mostly use LLMs for coding, so this is an interesting use case. I’m curious how long an article it can handle in practice before the context starts becoming an issue.

It's darkly amusing that while the author advises us not to let LLMs pick our words, their post includes this chunk of AI slop:

"Those rethinks are load-bearing parts of your voice. Readers won’t put their fingers on what’s wrong, but they’ll sense that you’ve become artificially-flavored."

The metaphor at the start is AI-like weirdness too: "without pasteurizing and jacking it with corn syrup." Pasteurising is good, corn syrup is bad - what the heck am I supposed to make of it? It's nonsense.

It may even have been handwritten by the author, but it's slop nonetheless.

You may be telling yourself that you're disciplined and you're just using the LLMs for review. But while you're reading their output, the slop makes its way directly into your brain anyway - and then it drips out into your writing.

"Those rethinks are load-bearing parts of your voice."

Loved the (possibly not deliberately ironic) use of the LLM'S favourite analogy, load-bearing.

Nice wee article though. I particularly agree with "Don’t take all of the model’s copyediting advice." I've been using LLMs to review teaching material and often it just doesn't get the point of teaching. It's good for prompting reflection on your writing but it's still an idiot savant.

> How to Write with an LLM

TLDR: Don’t.

[dead]