>I mean, you can put all your writing into collapsible sections, but I highly doubt you would get much traction that way. If you mark non-AI writing as AI content that's also against the moderation rules.

Simply keep the two apart, and try to add prose to explain the connection between them. Feel free to extensively make use of AI, just make sure it's clear which part is AI, and which part is not. Yes, this means you can't use AI straightforwardly to write your prose. Such is life. The costs aren't worth it for LW.


I'm surprised you are taking such a hardline stance on this point. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. 

The primary use-case of AI is not to just post some output with some minor context [though this can be useful]; the primary use-case is to create an AI draft and then go through several iterations and go through hand-editting at the end. 

Using AI to draft writing is increasingly default all around the world. Is LessWrong going to be a holdout on allowing this? It seems this is what is implied. 

Apart from the present post I am betting a large fraction of LessWrong posts are already written with AI assistance. Some may spent significant time to excise the tell-tale marks of LLM prose which man... feels super silly? But many posts explicitly acknowledge AI-assistance. For myself, I so assume everybody is using of course using AI assistance during writing I don't even consider it worth mentioning. It amuses me when commenters excitedly point out that I've used AI to assist writing as if they've caught me in some sort of shameful crime. 

 It seems that this ubiqituous practice violates either one of

>> You have to mark AI writing as such.
>>If you mark non-AI writing as AI content that's also against the moderation rules.

unless one retains a 'one-drop' rule for AI assistance. 

P.S. I didn't use AI to write these comments but I would if I could. The reason that I don't, is not even to refrain from angering king habryka- it's simply that there isn't a clean in-comment AI interface that I can use [1].  But I'm sure when they I'll be using it all the time, saving significant time and improving my prose at the same time. My native prose is oft clunky, grammatically questionable, overwrought and undercooked.  
I would probably play around with system prompts to give a more distinct style from standard LLMese because admittedly the "It's not just X it's a whole Y" can be rather annoying. 
 
[1] maybe such an application already exists. This would be amazing. It can't be too hard to code. Please let me know if you know any such application exists.  

I'm happy to signal that I'm a low-class individual, mouthpiece of the AI slop, if that helps. 

Bio-supremacists such as yourself can then be sure to sneer appropriately. 

Needless to say, as sovereign ruler of lesswrong I will abide by your judgement. But forgive me for asking a few questions/comments

1. This is not raw or lightly edited LLM output. Eg all facts and overall structure here are based on a handwritten draft.

2.  The LLM assistance was about writing flowing, coherent prose which (for me at least) can take a lot of time. Some may take offence at typical LLMisms but I fail to see how this lowers the object-level quality.  I could spend hours excising every sign of AI- but this defeats the purpose of using AI to enhance productivity. 

3. That said, if the facts were also LLM generated and I handchecked them carefully I fail to see how this would actually lower the overall quality - in fact my best guess is that LLMs are already much much better in many-most domains than many-most people. eg twitter has seen marked improvements in epistemic quality since @ grok is this true happened.  The future [and present] of writing and intellectual work is Artificial Intelligence. To claim otherwise seems to be a denial of the reality of the imminent and immanent arrival of a superior machine intelligence. 

4. Pragmatically, I find the present guidelines to be unclear. Am I allowed to post AI-assisted writing if I mark it as such? If so - I will just mark everything I write as AI content and let the reader decide if they trust my judgement.

If not - what's the exact demarcation here? 

I reread this comment and want to correct a misunderstanding. I think this may explain some of the rather vehement anti-llm responses that I found so puzzling earlier.

1. I used a LLM to write this post, like I advice anyone whose time is valuable to do as saves a lot of time. That said, it is not unedited at all and I spent many hours going through various drafts and iterations.

2. The post wasn't written by telling gpt "write a piece about natos military edge slopping". This was based on a handwritten initial draft outlining every technical point. This is based on several years of tracking this topic semi-seriously as an amateur military buff.

I would say it is the testament to the extraordinary quality of 1shot LLM responses that they occasionally show that is now expected that people assume that the above was a simple unedited prompt.

"Eat your brocolli" - Daniel Murfet

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1993614328256422125

this twitter account shares a whole host of Safe-for-work on the ground footage 

Have you been following the Ukraine war closely? The reality on the ground in terms of drone warfare is now far beyond that Anduril advertisement. You can find videos if you search for them. It's quite terrifying. 

Thanks Daniel, you bring up some good points. 
 

On the airforce issue I would be inclined to agree with you but the following video is doing the rounds on twitter right now: https://x.com/teortaxesTex/status/1993637089900900540

Not sure what to make of it, but some concerning claims: only 750 out of 2000 jet fighters in US airforce are combat ready. Average number of flights hour per pilot has dropped to 110 a year, where previously anything below 150 would be considered not combat-ready. Chinese fighter pilots average 200 hours a year.