[CityOfThrowaway]

In a lot of ways, I'm thankful that LLMs are letting us hear the thoughts of people who usually wouldn't share them.

There are skilled writers. Very skilled, unique writers. And I'm both exceedingly impressed by them as well as keenly aware that they are a rare breed.

But there's so many people with interesting ideas locked in their heads that aren't skilled writers. I have a deep suspicion that many great ideas have gone unshared because the thinker couldn't quite figure out how to express it.

In that way, perhaps we now have a monotexture of writing, but also perhaps more interesting ideas being shared.

Of course, I love a good, unique voice. It's a pleasure to parse patio11's straussian technocratic musings. Or pg's as-simple-as-possible form.

And I hope we don't lose those. But somehow I suspect we may see more of them as creative thinkers find new ways to express themselves. I hope!

[chemotaxis]

> In a lot of ways, I'm thankful that LLMs are letting us hear the thoughts of people who usually wouldn't share them.

I could agree with you in theory, but do you see the technology used that way? Because I definitely don't. The thought process behind the vast majority of LLM-generated content is "how do I get more clicks with less effort", not "here's a unique, personal perspective of mine, let's use a chatbot to express it more eloquently".

[hyghjiyhu]

We might get twice as many original ideas but hundred times as much filler. Neither of those aspects erases the other. Both the absolute number of ideas and the ratio matter.

[the_af]

I seriously doubt people didn't write blog posts or articles before LLMs because they didn't know how to write.

It's not some magic roadblock. They just didn't want to spend the effort to get better at writing; you get better at writing by writing (like good old Steve says in "On Writing"). It's how we all learnt.

I'm also not sure everyone should be writing articles and blog posts just because. More is not better. Maybe if you feel unmotivated about making the effort, just don't do it?

Almost everyone will cut novice writers and non-native $LANGUAGE speakers some slack. Making mistakes is not a sin.

Finally, my own bias: if you cannot be bothered to write something, I cannot be bothered to read it. This applies to AI slop 100%.

[LaGrange]

I hate when people hijack progressive language - like in your case the language of accessibility - for cheap marketing and hype.

Writing is one of the most accessible forms of expression. We were living in a world where even publishing was as easy as imaginable - sure, not actually selling/profiting, but here’s a secret, even most bestselling authors have either at least one other job, or intense support from their close social circle.

What you do to write good is you start by writing bad. And you do it for ages. LLMs not only don’t help here, they ruin it. And they don’t help people write because they’re still not writing. It just derails people who might, otherwise, maybe start actually writing.

Framing your expensive toy that ruins everything as an accessibility device is absurd.

[CityOfThrowaway]

I'm anon, but also the farthest thing from a progressive, so I find this post amusing.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying but I also have a different frame.

Even if we take your claim that LLMs don't make people better writers as true (which I think there's plenty to argue with), that's not the point at all.

What I'm saying is people are communicating better. For most ideas, writing is just a transport vessel for ideas. And people now have tools to communicate better than they would have been.

Most people aren't trying to become good writers. That's true before, and true now.

On the other hand, this argument probably isn't worth having. If your frame is that LLMs are expensive toys that ruin everything -- well, that's quite an aggressive posture to start with and is both unlikely to bear a useful conversation or a particularly delightful future for you.

[cinntaile]

It's probably true that it reduces the barrier to entry, you don't refute that point in your post. You just call it cheap marketing and hype.

[the_snooze]

It basically boils down to "I want the external validation of being seen as a good writer, without any of the internal growth and struggle needed to get there."

[freejazz]

> In that way, perhaps we now have a monotexture of writing, but also perhaps more interesting ideas being shared.

They aren't your ideas if its coming out of an LLM

[CityOfThrowaway]

Are they your ideas if they go through a heavy-handed editor? If you've had lots of conversations with others to refine them?

I dunno. There's ways to use LLMs that produces writing that is substantially not-your-ideas. But there's also definitely ways to use it to express things that the model would not have otherwise outputted without your unique input.

[BoredomIsFun]

counterargument: they still are your ideas even if they went through LLM.