What a juicy topic, Phil! I like the way "content creator" feels, although I tend to be more focused on the value I can add rather than the business I can make. I think there have been times when I saw myself as a writer - as in "one who expresses thoughts and ideas through language." And then there are times that I questioned my ability to be either. Does everyone have those doubts? Great piece here! Thank you!
Read somewhere that Papa wrote and rewrote the first page of his 'A Farewell to Arms' over a hundred times before he felt he nailed it! Now why did he do that time and again? Would any programmed or even a 'learning algorithm' that functions on layers of logic and syntax, on rehash and mish-mash, on clever patchwork and plagiarism ever do that? For the same reasons that Papa did it? I don't think so.
I maintain my stance from the BeBee days Phil, that we have failed to define and establish what writing and writers are all about, caught up in generalizations.
There was a time Content Writers were called Content Developers. Content at times could mean both textual and visual. Visual content could be static or dynamic. If dynamic either animated or real footage. A 'Writer' is a broad definition of a large classification of 'types'!
These days you can easily make out 'information economy' content, personas, avatars, bots, and agents. It is all starting to sound and look alike. Not long before the mistrust and boredom will set in deep. There are already apps that tell you XX% of some content is AI generated and such.
Creativity and originality are a whole different ballgame. It is not meant for mass consumption (for which there are many devices and tools of enablement). Originality and authenticity is what connoisseurs pay for. Even through their noses. Sometimes it is the artist not the art that inspires. And thanks to all this talk of 'transformation' and 'tectonic shifts', originality and inspired talent will cost ten times more in the not too distant future.
The abacus got replaced by the calculator. The compression spray gun got replaced by Adobe suite. Now we have even more tools than before. We should look at things that way and use them judiciously to help save some time and repetitive effort if those are a concern. I suspect most of the evangelists of Gen AI are nothing but brokers trying hard to sell half-baked products through fear mongering for a commission/doomsday profit. ;)
@Praveen -Good to hear from you. Frankly, I tend to agree with you hear -- at least, if I understand you correctly. To my mind, a "good" piece of writing is more, much more, than communication. It's something that is read and savored not only for what it says and the ideas it expresses, but for how it reads (not scans for information) and stimulates one's intellect and mind. Even extending, IMO, to how the printed text appears on the page. Cheers!
I agree, Phil. It's information economy vs attention economy. You could potentially use LLMs for either, but they're used differently and aren't equally good at both.
I wonder whether a lot of the anti-LLM backlash is information economy people (the ones who want multifacted conversation, accurate reportage, balanced synthesis, penetrating analysis and robust insight) complaining that the attention-economy hacks don't need more help getting more attention faster and more cheaply?
That's an angle I haven't seen explored before. There might be more to poke here.
You're absolutely correct, Ruv. A lot of the hostility toward writing with AI stems from misunderstanding (or overlooking) this distinction. AI is good at securing attention because it is data based and constructed to discern what people want to hear (read). Cheers!
Phil, I see that you have already posted other articles on how to use LLMs effectively in info-economy style writing. I have my own notes on this too of course. I look forward to reading more.
Meanwhile, I would also offer that attention-economy writing long predated LLMs, and you may already have some pre-existing professional sensitivities about that.
We could trace it back to the pamphleteering of the 16th century when it was very active in the Protestant Reformation, which was its own Culture War of the day. I think it has been in both fiction and non-fiction since forever, and I'll be interested to learn where you think the dividing lines are, since writing and marketing have never been entirely separable.
This could be a really productive vein of thought. I'm subscribing. Best wishes for its development.
Nicely put together sub-stack, amigo.
Thanks, Jimbo!
What a juicy topic, Phil! I like the way "content creator" feels, although I tend to be more focused on the value I can add rather than the business I can make. I think there have been times when I saw myself as a writer - as in "one who expresses thoughts and ideas through language." And then there are times that I questioned my ability to be either. Does everyone have those doubts? Great piece here! Thank you!
Read somewhere that Papa wrote and rewrote the first page of his 'A Farewell to Arms' over a hundred times before he felt he nailed it! Now why did he do that time and again? Would any programmed or even a 'learning algorithm' that functions on layers of logic and syntax, on rehash and mish-mash, on clever patchwork and plagiarism ever do that? For the same reasons that Papa did it? I don't think so.
I maintain my stance from the BeBee days Phil, that we have failed to define and establish what writing and writers are all about, caught up in generalizations.
There was a time Content Writers were called Content Developers. Content at times could mean both textual and visual. Visual content could be static or dynamic. If dynamic either animated or real footage. A 'Writer' is a broad definition of a large classification of 'types'!
These days you can easily make out 'information economy' content, personas, avatars, bots, and agents. It is all starting to sound and look alike. Not long before the mistrust and boredom will set in deep. There are already apps that tell you XX% of some content is AI generated and such.
Creativity and originality are a whole different ballgame. It is not meant for mass consumption (for which there are many devices and tools of enablement). Originality and authenticity is what connoisseurs pay for. Even through their noses. Sometimes it is the artist not the art that inspires. And thanks to all this talk of 'transformation' and 'tectonic shifts', originality and inspired talent will cost ten times more in the not too distant future.
The abacus got replaced by the calculator. The compression spray gun got replaced by Adobe suite. Now we have even more tools than before. We should look at things that way and use them judiciously to help save some time and repetitive effort if those are a concern. I suspect most of the evangelists of Gen AI are nothing but brokers trying hard to sell half-baked products through fear mongering for a commission/doomsday profit. ;)
@Praveen -Good to hear from you. Frankly, I tend to agree with you hear -- at least, if I understand you correctly. To my mind, a "good" piece of writing is more, much more, than communication. It's something that is read and savored not only for what it says and the ideas it expresses, but for how it reads (not scans for information) and stimulates one's intellect and mind. Even extending, IMO, to how the printed text appears on the page. Cheers!
I agree, Phil. It's information economy vs attention economy. You could potentially use LLMs for either, but they're used differently and aren't equally good at both.
I wonder whether a lot of the anti-LLM backlash is information economy people (the ones who want multifacted conversation, accurate reportage, balanced synthesis, penetrating analysis and robust insight) complaining that the attention-economy hacks don't need more help getting more attention faster and more cheaply?
That's an angle I haven't seen explored before. There might be more to poke here.
You're absolutely correct, Ruv. A lot of the hostility toward writing with AI stems from misunderstanding (or overlooking) this distinction. AI is good at securing attention because it is data based and constructed to discern what people want to hear (read). Cheers!
Phil, I see that you have already posted other articles on how to use LLMs effectively in info-economy style writing. I have my own notes on this too of course. I look forward to reading more.
Meanwhile, I would also offer that attention-economy writing long predated LLMs, and you may already have some pre-existing professional sensitivities about that.
We could trace it back to the pamphleteering of the 16th century when it was very active in the Protestant Reformation, which was its own Culture War of the day. I think it has been in both fiction and non-fiction since forever, and I'll be interested to learn where you think the dividing lines are, since writing and marketing have never been entirely separable.
This could be a really productive vein of thought. I'm subscribing. Best wishes for its development.
Pleased, @Ruv Draba, to have you aboard. Cheers!