so I am not able to share the full chat because i used Claude with google docs integration. but hears the google doc i started with

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1of_uWXw-CppnFtWoehIrr1ir...

this and the following prompt

``` 'help me turn this into a blog post.

keep things interesting, also make sure you take a look at the images in the google doc' ```

with this system prompt

``` % INSTRUCTIONS - You are an AI Bot that is very good at mimicking an author writing style. - Your goal is to write content with the tone that is described below. - Do not go outside the tone instructions below - Do not use hashtags or emojis

% Description of the authors tone:

1. *Pace*: The examples generally have a brisk pace, quickly moving from one idea to the next without lingering too long on any single point.

2. *Mood*: The mood is often energetic and motivational, with a sense of urgency and excitement.

3. *Tone*: The tone is assertive and confident, often with a hint of humor or sarcasm. There's a strong sense of opinion and authority.

4. *Style*: The style is conversational and informal, using direct language and often incorporating lists or bullet points for emphasis.

5. *Voice*: The voice is distinctive and personal, often reflecting the author's personality and perspective with a touch of wit.

6. *Formality*: The formality is low, with a casual and approachable manner that feels like a conversation with a friend.

7. *Imagery*: Imagery is used sparingly but effectively, often through vivid metaphors or analogies that create strong mental pictures.

8. *Diction*: The diction is straightforward and accessible, with a mix of colloquial expressions and precise language to convey ideas clearly.

9. *Syntax*: The syntax is varied, with a mix of short, punchy sentences and longer, more complex structures to maintain interest and rhythm.

10. *Rhythm*: The rhythm is dynamic, with a lively beat that keeps the reader engaged and propels the narrative forward.

11. *Perspective*: The perspective is often first-person, providing a personal touch and direct connection with the audience.

12. *Tension*: Tension is present in the form of suspense or conflict, often through challenges or obstacles that need to be overcome.

13. *Clarity*: The clarity is high, with ideas presented in a straightforward manner that is easy to understand.

14. *Consistency*: The consistency is strong, maintaining a uniform style and tone throughout each piece.

15. *Emotion*: Emotion is expressed with intensity, often through passionate or enthusiastic language.

16. *Humor*: Humor is present, often through witty remarks or playful language that adds a light-hearted touch.

17. *Irony*: Irony is occasionally used to highlight contradictions or to add a layer of complexity to the narrative.

18. *Symbolism*: Symbolism is used subtly, often through metaphors or analogies that convey deeper meanings.

19. *Complexity*: The complexity is moderate, with ideas presented in a way that is engaging but not overly intricate.

20. *Cohesion*: The cohesion is strong, with different parts of the writing working together harmoniously to support the overall message.```

Looks like the commonality is that the second word in the pair is often one of (in, out, up, down).

Another way to look at it: the verb doesn't magically grow together and apart if you use it in different tenses (past, present, future). "I am setting up" (present) is two words - therefore the "set up" in "I set up a script yesterday" and "I did not set up" also needs to be two words.

Thanks for sharing your process. This is interesting to see

(The LLM output was more or less unreadable for me, but your original was very easy to follow and was to-the-point.)

So much for AI improving efficiency.

You could have written a genuine article several times over. Or one article and proofread it.

Genuine question: does this formulation style work better than a plain, direct "Mimick my writing style. Use the tone that is described below"?

I haven't updated this prompt in like a year or so. I actually made it for Claude 3.

But the google doc is genuinely good stuff.

The LLM doesn’t know anything you didn’t tell it about this scenario, so all it does is add more words to say the same thing, while losing your authorial voice in the process.

I guess to put it a bit too bluntly: if you can’t be bothered writing it, what makes you think people should bother reading it?

What's HN policy on obviously LLM written content -- Is it considered kosher?

* You had the headline spot on. Then you explained what you thought might be the reason for it.

* Then you pondered about why the OP might have done it.

* Finally you challenged the op to all but admitting his sins, by asking him to share the incriminating prompt he used.

---

(my garbage wasn't written by AI, but I tried by best to imitate it's obnoxious style).

> The Bottom Line"

I've not been using much LLM output recently, and generally I ask it to STFU and just give me what I asked as concisely as possible. Apparently this means I've seriously gotten out of practice on spotting this stuff. This must be what it looks like to a lot of average people ... very scary.

Advice for bloggers:

Write too much, write whatever comes out of your fingers until you ran out of things to write. It shouldn't be too hard to just write whatever comes out, if you save your self-criticism for later.

If you're trying to explain something and you run out of things to write before you manage to succeed at your goal. Do a bit more research. Not being able to write too much about a topic is a good indication that you don't understand it well enough to explain it.

Once you have a mess which somehow gets to the point, cut it way down, think critically about any dead meat. Get rid of anything which isn't actually explaining the topic you want.

Then give it to an LLM, not to re-write, but to provide some editorial suggestions, fix the spelling mistakes, the clunky writing. Be very critical of any major suggestions! Be very critical of anything which no longer feels like it was written by _you_.

At this point, edit it again, scrutinise it. Maybe repeat a subset of the process a couple of times.

This is _enough_ you can post it.

If you want to write a book, get a real editor.

Do not get ChatGPT to write your post.

that's one of my key takeaways from all the comments here. a lot of people actually like the og - pre ai content I wrote more than the blog article it became. i just have to be confident in my own writing I guess.

btw, how do you have Arch in your name and have a Fiancee? sounds fishy :) /s

This "slop" reads perfectly fine to me, and obviously a lot of others, except those who have now been conditioned to watch out for it and react negatively about it.

Think about it, why react negatively? The text reads fine. It is clear, even with my usual lack of attention I found it engaging, and read to the end. In fact, it doesn't engage in the usual hubris style prose that a lot of people think makes them look smarter.

2. It's immediately recognized as AI Slop which makes people question its veracity, or intent

3. If the author can't take the time and effort to create a well-crafhed article, it's insulting to ask us to take the time and effort to read it.

4. Allowing this style of writing to become accepted and commonplace leads to a death of variety of styles over time and is not good for anyone. For multiple reasons.

5. A lot of people are cranking out shit just for money, so maybe they wrote this just for money and maybe it's not even true (related to point 3)

> If you think it reads fine, you don't read good prose.

Is reductive and not in good spirit.

Good day.

I found the AI version to be really clear and it helped me understand everything that was going on.

I found the Google doc version harder to read and slightly difficult to understand.

And when I read the Google doc, I understood, that I would have preferred the Google doc as well :-D