AI is a way to level the playing field, for sure! Successful writers have always operated with a lot of support around them, but not everyone has access to those resources.
大多数人认为AI写作会加剧不平等，但作者将其视为一种民主化工具，可以让没有传统写作资源的人获得专业级支持。这挑战了人们对AI写作的精英主义批评，表明它实际上可能缩小而非扩大创作领域的差距，为更多人提供专业写作支持。
When I sit down to write a piece, and before I even write a word, I have the agent interview me. It asks questions to draw out what I'm thinking about the topic.
大多数人认为AI写作始于人类向AI提供想法，但作者展示了相反的过程：AI先通过采访人类来提取想法。这种反转挑战了人们对AI写作方向的认知，表明AI不仅可以辅助写作，还可以成为激发和引导人类思考的工具，重新定义了写作中的主导关系。
My process has about as much in common with that as cooking has with microwaving a frozen dinner.
大多数人认为AI写作就像简单的提示-生成-粘贴过程，但作者将其比作烹饪与微波冷冻餐的区别，暗示真正的AI写作是复杂且需要技巧的。这挑战了人们对AI写作的简化认知，表明它实际上是一种需要专业技能和创造性的复杂工艺，而非简单的机械化任务。
Research is thinking. Outlining is thinking. Writing is thinking. Any portion of that done by AI is less thinking done by you.
大多数人认为AI写作减少了思考量，但作者认为这种观点过于简化。实际上，作者展示了AI写作需要更多的思考、批判性判断和严格的编辑过程，远非简单的'少思考'。她的AI写作过程涉及复杂的交互、深度反思和多轮修改，实际上可能比传统写作需要更多的思考投入。
For the record, my posts aren’t written or conceived with an LLM, although I know an increasing number of people who use one to write a first draft and then edit. I’m not a fan. The whole point of the web — its beauty — is that it’s unrelentingly human and diverse.
A good case for disfavoring the use of AI/LLMs to write first drafts of blog posts. Implicit I believe is a distinction between using external tools to edit/proofread a human-written draft vs editing/proofreading a machine draft (granting I do not use these tools for either). Related to points I raised in Re; On AI in response to: A Positive Technologist Identity (2/4).
AI is now writing much of the code at Anthropic
for - AI - status - writing most of the code at Anthropic
https://web.archive.org/web/20251226113306/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/26/ai-dark-ages-enlightenment Opinion piece asking if AI is taking on the similar (feudal) role of priests, kings and lords to outsource our decisions to. Leaving the enlightenment behind, and the romanticist invention of the self.
See Ezra Klein's argument against using ChatGPT for writing even the first draft. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-write/id1700171470?i=1000710273359
To generate text that I've edited to include in my own writing
I see this as collaborative writing with AI; no longer just the students work
Interesting thought. This guy relates the upcome of AI (non-fiction) writing to the lack of willingness people have to find out what is true and what is false.
Similar to Nas & Damian Marley's line in the Patience song -- "The average man can't prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of. And still won't research and find the root of the truth that you seek of."
If you want to form an opinion about something, do this educated, not based on a single source--fact-check, do thorough research.
Charlie Munger's principle. "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."
It all boils down to a critical self-thinking society.
Really useful video about the generation of story beats.
https://www.meetup.com/edtechsocal/events/296723328/
Generative AI: Super Learning Skills with Data Discovery and more!
LLMs are merely engines for generating stylistically plausible output that fits the patterns of their inputs, rather than for producing accurate information. Publishers worry that a rise in their use might lead to greater numbers of poor-quality or error-strewn manuscripts — and possibly a flood of AI-assisted fakes.
for: progress trap, progress trap - AI, progress trap - AI - writing research papers
comment
Mills, Anna, Maha Bali, and Lance Eaton. “How Do We Respond to Generative AI in Education? Open Educational Practices Give Us a Framework for an Ongoing Process.” Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6, no. 1 (June 11, 2023): 16–30. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.34.
Annotation url: urn:x-pdf:bb16e6f65a326e4089ed46b15987c1e7
another tool with a creative bent
Which is why I wonder if this may be the end of using writing as a benchmark for aptitude and intelligence.
Perhaps there are reasons for optimism, if you push all this aside. Maybe every student is now immediately launched into that third category: The rudiments of writing will be considered a given, and every student will have direct access to the finer aspects of the enterprise. Whatever is inimitable within them can be made conspicuous, freed from the troublesome mechanics of comma splices, subject-verb disagreement, and dangling modifiers.
I’ve also long held, for those who are interested in writing, that you need to learn the basic rules of good writing before you can start breaking them—that, like Picasso, you have to learn how to reliably fulfill an audience’s expectations before you get to start putting eyeballs in people’s ears and things.
“In literacy education, particularly for developing writers, instructors are looking for the level of desirable difficulty, or the point at which you are working yourself just as hard so that you don’t break but you also improve,” Laffin told Motherboard. “Finding the right, appropriate level of desirable difficulty level of instruction makes their capacity to write grow. So if you are doing compensation techniques that go beyond finding that level of desirable difficulty and instructing at that place, then you’re not helping them grow as a writer.”