not_maz

That's fine. The ideas transmit, the words are forgotten. He doesn't need to use memorable sentences if he's saying what he's trying to say.

Paul Graham is a very skilled communicator. He's not a writer's writer like YKW, but he doesn't need to be.

    "No, I want your honest opinion." "It's awesome."
    "I'm going to invest $250,000 into this. Tell me what you really think." "You should do it."

    (New Session)

    "Someone pitched to me the idea that..." "Reject it."

AIs are inferior to humans at their best, but superior to humans as they actually behave in society, due to decision fatigue and other constraints. When it comes to moral judgment in high stakes scenarios, AIs still fail (or can be made to fail) in ways that are not socially acceptable.

Compare an AI to a real-world, overworked corporate decision maker, though, and you'll find that the AI is kinder and less biased. It still sucks, because GI/GO, but it's slightly better, simply because it doesn't suffer emotional fatigue, doesn't take as many shortcuts, and isn't clouded by personal opinions since it's not a person.

LLMs can generate convincing editorial letters that give a real sense of having deeply read the work. The problem is that they're extremely sensitive, as you've noticed, to prompting as well as order bias. Present it with two nearly identical versions of the same text, and it will usually choose based on order. And social proof type biases to which we'd hope for machines to be immune can actually trigger 40+ point swings on a 100-point scale.

If you don't mind technical details and occasional swagger, his work is really interesting.