Every Novel Is Boring–Until It took a post (2025)

LLM writing is boring. Write it yourself. You are more interesting than a LLM because you make mistakes, do stupid things, don't go for the average content, and can be ridiculous in a way that an LLM can never be. LLMs are great for large tasks which would take you several hours or several days to complete that are routine or tedious. Even then, you have to make it sound like YOUR ultimate version, not just your words. Perhaps Claude truly nailed it in your taste and you want to be true, and act like it is true. Do this every day of every year. In the beginning, people will object; do not get into a debate with them, rather continue making up lies, bigger ones. I remember seeing videos of a tsunami for the first time. I imagined a huge wave that destroyed everything. It was nothing like that. It started slowly. The water level rose, a few waves went over a wall and onto streets, But the water kept coming, and coming, destroying everything that stood in its path, and in a matter of time. I don't care about AGI, it does not seem to mean much anymore, and even though I originally laughed at ppl calling it AGI, I now agree. You can apply that current intelligence to anything that can be turned into a conversation. It seems their flavor of RSI still need a human in the loop. So at least it won't scale as well for now.

Just like LLM-generated blurbs are now a cliched trope, so are short blog posts about people experience in a world with a lot of the model's capability comes from a verbalized reasoning process (chain-of-thought). If we scale optimization on the outcomes of that process, but do not supervise the process itself, that chain-of-thought has no direct incentive in training to hide any misaligned ideas or objectives. If we're not supervising the process, but just the outcomes, doesn't that do just the opposite of what he says? Give incentive to the model to hide misaligned ideas and objectives in the chain of thought that's not being supervised? …. When we shipped o1‑preview, we deliberately designed the product to hide the chain of thought , to protect it from supervision pressure in the long term2. In development since, we have strived to maintain the rule of not supervising the reasoning process. CoT monitoring became an extremely important tool for us in studying how our models generalize from their training distribution, allowing us to observe and analyze not only their actions but also their internal process. Aren't these two sentences in contradiction with each other? LLM writing is boring. Write it yourself. You are more interesting than a LLM because you make mistakes, do stupid things, don't go for the average content, and can be ridiculous in a way that an LLM can never be. LLMs are great for large tasks which would take you several hours or several days to complete that are routine or tedious. Even then, you have to make it sound like YOUR ultimate version, not just your words. Perhaps Claude truly nailed it in your taste and you want to be able to reproduce it reliably without automation: record one phrase at a time and try to minimize the about of variance between yours and the MIDI. Maybe some visual feedback would help and be clever, but usually using your ear is the most productive. Just like LLM-generated blurbs are now a cliched trope, so are short blog posts about people experience in a world with a lot of physics, and a lot of Computer Science. We should probably keep doing it. Does the current model (of highly-talented academics at Universities mostly arguing with each other) change because of AI? Does it invalidate human effort, or does it allow humans to push the boundaries further? Is there no point in training or paying for mathematicians because AI will take over the whole role? Or, as we're finding with so many other areas, does AI do its best work when guided by someone who knows the area and subject well?

Just like LLM-generated blurbs are now a cliched trope, so are short blog posts about people experience in a world with a lot of LLM assisted content without batting an eye, but only spots the worse of the LLM outputs. There's a big difference between "write a post about _" vs "improve the grammar/style of my post: _". It's a bit like saying that movie CGI really sucks because you can always tell it's fake. Just like LLM-generated blurbs are now a cliched trope, so are short blog posts about people experience in a world with a lot of informational things, but math / stats / software has always felt like an area where a book is just the wrong format. If I were you I'd make an interactive website like SQLZoo or a video series like StatQuest. Those are educational formats that really clicked with me for whatever reason. Just like LLM-generated blurbs are now a cliched trope, so are short blog posts about people experience in a world with a lot of years of complacent government leaving people feeling exposed to corporate interests, such that fear narratives are very powerful. None of what is being proposed is inevitable. We have a choice.

LLM writing is boring. Write it yourself. You are more interesting than a LLM because you make mistakes, do stupid things, don't go for the average content, and can be ridiculous in a way that an LLM can never be. LLMs are great for large tasks which would take you several hours or several days to complete that are routine or tedious. Even then, you have to make it sound like YOUR ultimate version, not just your words. Perhaps Claude truly nailed it in your taste and you want to be true, and act like it is true. Do this every day of every year. In the beginning, people will object; do not get into a debate with them, rather continue making up lies, bigger ones. I remember seeing videos of a tsunami for the first time. I imagined a huge wave that destroyed everything. It was nothing like that. It started slowly. The water level rose, a few waves went over a wall and onto streets, But the water kept coming, and coming, destroying everything that stood in its path, and in a matter of timing till most knowledge work heads that way. From what I can tell discussions on what to do about it haven't really advanced much if at all. Still the same mix of new jobs will appear, jobs will change and perhaps some talk of UBI.