This is a special post for quick takes by D. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I keep trying to post something on Less Wrong and it is either rejected as "too raw / sloppy" or when I work on making it better with AI it is then rejected as "AI generated".
I think the context was a bit lost but basically I am new and tried posting something quickly from the phone to see how it works. It was definitely sloppy with typos etc. Pure and raw no AI. Then after rejection I tried clean up with AI and the AI filter. I totally understand that amount of AI slop/spam and the need to have controls.
I think the current workflow for those of us who who AI to iterate on ideas and collect information is to draft with AI and the literally rewrite in our own words in the final form. It is quite bizarre but this actually seems to work.
One of the interesting side effects is that I deep dived into "AI detection" and it is actually quite interesting thinking about what this means for these systems and human thought.
5Raemon
On one hand, I think this can work. But, I caution that many versions of this are a trap that don't produce good output. I recommend spending at least some chunks of time writing and thinking without any AI assistance, because otherwise I think you critical discernment skills probably won't sharpen enough to contribute usefully.
I do worry about this, except that my personality is such that I'm frequently taking an opposite position of the agents and finding them ridiculous.
My heuristic is probably something like: if using agents to "think" is taking 5-10x longer than I would to simply write something out, it can't simply be me aggreeing with whatever they say can it? Am I really deluding myself into thinking I am "shouting at the computer because I agree with it?"
I am completely guilty of outsourcing "clarity and prose" decisions because I largely find that my personal taste is a... (read more)