Some claim they would rather read your messy prompt to an LLM rather than the output. (here, here, some are now assigning more value to imperfect English over AI slop).
What if I took this literally? What if instead of trying to polish my writing to what I think is accessible and meaningful to an audience, I just posted the prompts?
In my experience, as I’ve written about here, the simple act of writing a prompt often negates the need to ask an LLM in the first place.
My real question is: will readers get more out of my writing if I write as instructions for an LLM or does the direct approach work better?
I think that the direct approach works better because it requires the reader less effort to understand.
As for the issue of prompt to LLM vs LLM output, the LLM output is supposed[1] to be unlikely to contain actually interesting novel insights and likely to have major issues like @MikkW's essay about the egregore food chain where Gemini, in addition to AI slop,[2] wrote this piece of mathematically clear BS:
Gemini's BS
We can model this egregorical predation utilizing a cybernetic adaptation of the classic Lotka-Volterra equations: