Like this is a bit shitposty, but I do think that if someone replies to your blog being like 'but have you considered X?', a lot of the time it's because they want to join the conversation, not because they want to catch you out or think you should have put that in originally.
As messrs @mikewtrapp.bsky.social and @ifycomedy.com say, ‘Nerds are passionate about a lot of things, but there’s one thing they love above all else, and that’s correcting people’
I'm against over-caveating/over-covering-your-arse in writing for many reasons, but one I just thought of is: every time you say 'to be clear, I'm not claiming X', you take away a commenter's chance to add that nuance. Why would you deprive your readers of the joy of correcting you or engaging?
I continue to find the overly agreeable tone of LLMs very squicky. Like I think a good part of this might be my emotions are treating it like ordering someone about even though I don't think LLMs are sentient.
I guess the topic is somewhat personal, but if I was considering publishing it generally, why should it be embarrassing to share with an assumedly non-sentient, if anthropomorphic, LLM?
Like not because it's bad writing, but it feels weird/creepy/uncomfortable/embarrassing somehow. Not really sure why.
Today for I think the first time, I tested what would happen if I put a messy blog draft into an LLM. My verdict is that the blog draft was pretty good--it was a reasonable reflection of what I'd put in, it wasn't AI slop or overly corporate--but I just Do Not Like It
As another non-LLM-user, I appreciate this, though I think some of my reasons are less virtuous than yours (less trying and finding it wanting, more being averse to trying)
We're used to the devils we know and don't emotionally respond to them in the same way.
So I don't worry too much if I say 'X Systemic Change would be good' and others say 'but wouldn't it introduce Y problem?' But maybe in actual fact ppl would respond to it as they do to tech breaking, i.e. 'unfairly'/disproportionately.
I think people often have this attitude for new societal structures: e.g. if talking about anarchism, skeptics will say 'but wouldn't anarchism create X problem?' But that shouldn't be a knock-down because the current system also has problems!
Like ebooks are clearly a cool innovation for portability, getting things quickly, accessibility etc, but I've never been as delighted by an ebook as I have been enraged by the Kobo corporation.
Was thinking: maybe with new tech, we expect it to be like a 'Pareto improvement' (solves some problems but doesn't create new ones), which is why tech can create so much frustration even if it makes the situation better overall.
