Well, you biased me by telling me in advance which one is which, but I much prefer the purely human-written version.
I think editing or rewriting existing text will harm the quality, but the thing that harms the quality the most by far is when the LLM generates original text. It has certain tics or habits when it comes to writing that I really donāt like.
I think you are probably operating under the misapprehension that LLMs write better than you or that LLMs improve your writing. Your purely human-written example is perfectly competent and thereās no reason you should run it through an LLM filter.
Ha, true, this would have been more fun if I hadnāt told you š. Thank you for your kind words on the competence of my writing.
About my supposed missaprahention: It depends. Sometimes the LLM takes all of the edge and spice out of what I say, and then Iāll gladly ditch its suggestions. However, often itāll be more concise and a bit more graceful in its choice of words. Itās most definitely better at grammar and orthography than I am. In the example above, the whole message is shorter without losing any meaningful content. I think removing the āwellā from the first sentence made it a bit less clumsy. In the second sentence the word āpracticesā is slightly closer to what I wanted to express than āapplicationsā. Etc. Be that as it may, it gives me more options, which is nice. I am still free to reject its suggestions or modify them, so Iām happy itās there for me to be used if I find it beneficial, as I often do.
I used to like Grammarly for checking spelling, grammar, punctuation, and copy editing things, but it seems like itās gone downhill since switching to an LLM-based software. Google Docs is decent for catching basic things like typos, accidentally missing a word, accidentally repeating a word, subject/āverb agreement, etc.
I actually donāt agree with the LLMās changes in the two examples you mentioned and I think it made the writing worse in both cases. The LLMās diction is staid and corporate, it lacks energy.
Well, you biased me by telling me in advance which one is which, but I much prefer the purely human-written version.
I think editing or rewriting existing text will harm the quality, but the thing that harms the quality the most by far is when the LLM generates original text. It has certain tics or habits when it comes to writing that I really donāt like.
I think you are probably operating under the misapprehension that LLMs write better than you or that LLMs improve your writing. Your purely human-written example is perfectly competent and thereās no reason you should run it through an LLM filter.
Ha, true, this would have been more fun if I hadnāt told you š. Thank you for your kind words on the competence of my writing.
About my supposed missaprahention: It depends. Sometimes the LLM takes all of the edge and spice out of what I say, and then Iāll gladly ditch its suggestions. However, often itāll be more concise and a bit more graceful in its choice of words. Itās most definitely better at grammar and orthography than I am. In the example above, the whole message is shorter without losing any meaningful content. I think removing the āwellā from the first sentence made it a bit less clumsy. In the second sentence the word āpracticesā is slightly closer to what I wanted to express than āapplicationsā. Etc. Be that as it may, it gives me more options, which is nice. I am still free to reject its suggestions or modify them, so Iām happy itās there for me to be used if I find it beneficial, as I often do.
I used to like Grammarly for checking spelling, grammar, punctuation, and copy editing things, but it seems like itās gone downhill since switching to an LLM-based software. Google Docs is decent for catching basic things like typos, accidentally missing a word, accidentally repeating a word, subject/āverb agreement, etc.
I actually donāt agree with the LLMās changes in the two examples you mentioned and I think it made the writing worse in both cases. The LLMās diction is staid and corporate, it lacks energy.