It certainly has its place, but there's also a temptation to press the button instead of thinking.

Seen a few "as a large language model" reviews on Amazon a few months back; now the search results are for T-shirts with that phrase printed on them, and I don't know if that's because people are buying them or because an unrelated bot generates new T-shirts every time it notices a new catchphrase.

Probably a person who doesn’t think with chatGPT won’t be thinking through writing either? I don’t think I’m thinking less with chatGPT and I don’t think my 13 year old is thinking less either. It’s quite thought demanding, actually…

What is thought demanding about it?

I feel like I spend more time trying to coax it into staying focused than anything else. Not where I want to spend my time and effort tbh

Evaluating the veracity and relevance of everything it says. Reflecting on what it’s given me and determining whether it meets my objectives. And then the topics I use it for are thought demanding!

If you are using it for marketing copy, that’s one thing. I’m using it to think through some very hard topics — and my kid is trying to learn how photosynthesis works atm.

As I understand it, these models respond at the same sort of level as the prompts; writing like you're a kid, get a simple reply, write like a PhD and get a fancy one.

"Autocomplete on steroids" has always felt to me like it needlessly diminished how good it is, but in this aspect I'd say it's an important and relevant part of the behaviour.

The issue I am talking about is not about prompting, but a limitation of the models and algorithms below this layer. Prompting only exists because of the chat fine-tuning that happened at the later stages

Reading and writing have served humanity well.

We can see the impact of outsourcing thinking in modernity, via the simplicity of likes and retweets.

While ChatGPT can be a helpful tool, the issue is that many will substitute rather than augment. It is a giant language averaging machine, which will bring many people up, but bring the other half down, though not quite because the upper echelons will know better than to parrot the parrot.

Summarizing a text will remove the nuance of meaning captured by the authors' words.

Generating words will make your writing blasé.

Do you think ChatGPT can converse like this?

One might entertain a contrary perspective on the issue of ChatGPT. Rather than being a monolithic linguistic equalizer, it could be seen as a tool, a canvas with a wide spectrum of applications. Sure, some may choose to use it as a crutch, diluting their creativity, yet others might harness it as a springboard, leveraging it to explore new ideas and articulate them in ways they might not have otherwise.

Consequently, the notion that ChatGPT could 'bring down' the more skilled among us may warrant further scrutiny. Isn't it possible that the 'upper echelons' might find novel ways to employ this tool, enhancing rather than undermining their capabilities?

Similarly, while summarization can be a blunt instrument, stripping away nuance, it can also be a scalpel, cutting through verbosity to deliver clear, concise communication. What if ChatGPT could serve as a tutor, teaching us the art of brevity?

The generated words may risk becoming 'blasé', as you eloquently put it, but again, isn't it contingent on how it's used? Can we not find ways to ensure our individual voice still shines through?

So, while I understand and respect your concerns, I posit that our apprehensions should not eclipse the potential that tools like ChatGPT offer us. It might not just be a 'parrot' – but a catalyst for the evolution of human communication.

Though I'm hoping you didn't suspect it, I should warn you this comment was written by you know what (who?).

Ironically, this comment is better written than nearly all others under this post. I take LLMs to be net positive contributors to literary expression.

What is better about the writing? What about the argumentation?

Did AI augment your thinking on the matter or did it do the thinking for you?

You turned up the “smart” knob too high, clocked it at sentence 3, but a hearty +1 from me

I enjoyed reading. May I ask what you used as a prompt?

This is word soup just for the sake of using lots of fancy words. Be more concise ChatGPT... Bard is often better here

If ChatGPT did write this, as you allude to, then you didn't check your work. These counter arguments are distracted and irrelevant at times...

> Rather than being a monolithic linguistic equalizer

This has very different meaning than "language averager", from words to model (during training), vs linguistic equalizer, model to words (after training)

> it could be seen as a tool, a canvas with a wide spectrum of applications.

Yes, ofc, but we are talking about writing specificly, this is trending towards whataboutism.

> Sure, some may choose to use it as a crutch, diluting their creativity, yet others might harness it as a springboard, leveraging it to explore new ideas and articulate them in ways they might not have otherwise.

This is the point, not contrary to what has been said. The issue is with the crutch users. We know many people do this, yet this topic is barely mentioned, let alone addressed as the core of the discussion.

> ... the notion that ChatGPT could 'bring down' the more skilled among us ... Isn't it possible that the 'upper echelons' might find novel ways...

That is what I said

> but again, isn't it contingent on how it's used?

again, this is what I said, not reflecting this shows how limited this reply is in debate and argumentation

> What if ChatGPT could serve as a tutor, teaching us the art of brevity?

More whataboutism, irrelevant to the more focused discussion at hand

> So, while I understand and respect your concerns, I posit that our apprehensions should not eclipse the potential that tools like ChatGPT offer us. It might not just be a 'parrot' – but a catalyst for the evolution of human communication.

Sam might disagree here... though I do not completely. Why did it switch to "our" all of the sudden?

Not sure where I said it, but I have put forth the idea that it could, _could_, improve communication for many, by acting as a filter or editor. Again the issue at hand is that _many_ will not use it as a tool but as a replacement, there are many lazy people who do not want to write and will subsequently not critically read the output...

---

>> the issue is that many will substitute rather than augment

This is the core statement of my argument, "many" has been interpreted as something more, not partial. That it is lost within the reply is not surprising... a distracted and largely irrelevant word soup

In summary, this is the low quality writing one might come to expect from ChatGPT primary output, assuming the allusion is correctly interpreted... be clear if you use it

And sibling comments show that lack of critical reading and fawning for anything ChatGPT, whether it was or was not, people are assuming so based on your last ambiguous sentence.