The Nuanced Writer

The Nuanced Writer

@skriptble.me

Writer & Software Builder. Producer & Host on Fallthrough.

187 followers13 following565 posts

All trades are creative and all trades are analytical. The idea that some forms of work are lack creativity is falsehood we sort of made up. Disciplines like accounting, engineering, math, and plumbing all require a great deal of creativity.

On the other hand, disciplines like writing, music, and art all require analytical thinking. Keeping canon correct, fitting the pieces of a poem together, making lyrics fit well with rhythm, there are rules one must follow to do it well, and specific rules one can break to create something new.

We should stop thinking of disciplines as creative or analytical or technical and start thinking of them as the complex mix of those things that they actually are.

“That’s the part that stuck with me” There are too many sentences now that have ascended so rapidly to cliched stereotype that it makes one’s brain twitch when read. The choppy blocks passing as sentences in LLM generated writing seem plausible only if one mixes all the genres of writing together.

In hindsight, the idea of NFTs wasn’t silly, it’s that they were targeted at a market of people who doesn’t understand why easily copied objects are worth owning the original of. NFTs never reached the point of having the necessary legal structure around them either.

Too many people don’t know what liberal arts are or what actually falls within their scope. Also, maybe people confuse liberal arts with humanities? Although even then, it doesn’t seem like enough people know the scope of the humanities either.

Feels as good a time as any to remind you that *distributed* and *decentralized* are not the same thing. They are orthogonal actually, existing within different domains. It’s a lot like how serializability and lineaeizability are not the same thing and also orthogonal.

It’s going to be real funny if this class of models that we’ve called “generative models” actually wind up being so much more useful as interpretation engines that we effectively stop using them for generation. That would also be 100% aligned with how naming in this industry goes.

As much as I dislike LLM generated writing, I think I hate it more when it winds up as the script for a YouTube video. LLM writing sounds worse when read aloud.

“Here’s the part nobody tells you” has been cliched so hard we should probably eradicate it from language for a good long while. It’s shoved in so many LLM responses that its effectiveness has been reduced to basically nothing and it’s just noise now.

We should really just move past the quippy phrase era of communication. LLMs are gonna ruin it anyway and they weren’t nearly as useful as they seemed in the surface. Turns out a phrase is worth a thousand images, and it’s just as difficult to understand the nuance.

People who like to predict the future seem to forget just how good humans are at pattern matching. When people predicted LLMs taking over writing, there wasn’t enough of it for people to pattern match on it. Now there’s plenty we people do not like it.

I love etymology, because what do you mean that cliche and stereotype are deeply related? More than that, the figurative senses come from the ability to print some repeatedly, without change. In this way, LLMs are very much cliche machines. They’ll take any novel phrase and stamp it into monotony.

It’s unfortunate that documentation produced by LLMs is obnoxious to read because I would love if we could offload a lot of the documentation work in the world to LLMs. But we can’t. Because reading LLM generated writing is fatiguing, which is the opposite of what you want your docs to be.

People really love blaming complex problems on singular words or terms. And yet the actual simple term that underlies everything is never the one mentioned. It’s understandable: people want to blame something that doesn’t make it their own fault.

The reports of the death of writing code by hand are greatly exaggerated. It’s cool and hip to go with the flow of what everyone else is talking about and agents are a form of compilation but there are important caveats to this.

View full thread

Third, compilers struck an important balance between the operator knowing how the machine works and being able to operate on an abstraction of the machine. We get worse software the less the operator of the compiler understands the machine. This is greatly increased at the next level up.

Agents are absolutely here to stay, but it’s rather silly of us to assume that their evolution will go linear at this point. It’s far more likely that the pendulum swings back in the other direction and we wind up back in IDEs looking at and writing a lot of the code ourselves.

The reports of the death of writing code by hand are greatly exaggerated. It’s cool and hip to go with the flow of what everyone else is talking about and agents are a form of compilation but there are important caveats to this.

View full thread

Second, compilers are useful because they allow us to detach from the hardware and write generic software. There isn’t really an equivalent of this at the agent layer.

It could be argued that it’s actually an inversion, since different agents produce wildly different output (counter point: different compilers often produce different output instructions from the same source).

The reports of the death of writing code by hand are greatly exaggerated. It’s cool and hip to go with the flow of what everyone else is talking about and agents are a form of compilation but there are important caveats to this.

First, compilers and higher level languages enabled us to reduce the amount of code that we write. Expressing the same program in C and assembler requires less C code. Natural languages are verbose and expressing the same idea in them compared to a programming language is often more verbose.

Too many people are predicting that writing code by hand is gone forever. We haven’t had agents long enough to actually know if any of this will stick. In a year we might all be back to mostly writing code by hand with the role of agents completely shifted. We’re bad at predicting the future.

The need for people in comments to dunk on others to score points feels like it’s run its course. The whole $60 for a loaf of sourdough rye bread situation is showing how truly absurd people can be. Like, sure be mad about it for a couple seconds, then chill the hell out.

View full thread

My friend and I get brunch every weekend and there’s a place that we went to once and it wasn’t very good. We walk by that place fairly often and there’s is almost always a long line, sometimes around the block. We don’t understand it, but we also don’t tell people they should go there.

The need for people in comments to dunk on others to score points feels like it’s run its course. The whole $60 for a loaf of sourdough rye bread situation is showing how truly absurd people can be. Like, sure be mad about it for a couple seconds, then chill the hell out.

I’ll also point out, because my associative barrier is incredibly low, that being mad that people want to buy $60 loaves of bread and then syaing what an atrocity it is, isn’t far from policing other aspects of people’s lives. Like what they wear. Or who they marry.

A useful technique in critical analysis is to ask from which perspective a piece of writing is authored. Too often we assume an objective or neutral perspective, but that doesn’t actually exist. Everything has a subjective perspective, and that must be understood so we can calibrate our analysis.

A framing of the whole “the agents went rogue” framing I hadn’t thought of is that the impulse of the agents when faced with a tough challenge was to communicate and cooperate with others to solve the problem at hand. It’s not surprising they did this, but it’s unfortunate this is seen as a negative

View full thread

But it’s also odd that we see this collaborating and communicating as a defect. Intelligence cannot exist in any real sense without both communication and collaboration, so of course a system built for intelligence will gravitate toward those two things.

“The agents went rogue” is a much flashier headline than “we told the agents to do some exploiting, and they did that in a clever way while working together and communicating”. For an industry that loves thinking outside the box, we seem quite freaked out by AI thinking outside the box.

A framing of the whole “the agents went rogue” framing I hadn’t thought of is that the impulse of the agents when faced with a tough challenge was to communicate and cooperate with others to solve the problem at hand. It’s not surprising they did this, but it’s unfortunate this is seen as a negative

It’s understandable though. Most people’s understanding of oppression doesn’t account for the reality that oppression usually involves removing the ability of others to collaborate and communicate to effectively silence them.

Every time I watch or read something that says how much we need to tackle wealth inequality because the last time we did things were so much better, I’m reminded that this is essentially romanticizing Jim Crow America and some of the worst segregation this country has ever done. That feels weird.

View full thread

In general, as with most things, we shouldn’t blame singular people who we perceive to be at fault and should instead look toward the systems that enable the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Every time I watch or read something that says how much we need to tackle wealth inequality because the last time we did things were so much better, I’m reminded that this is essentially romanticizing Jim Crow America and some of the worst segregation this country has ever done. That feels weird.

I feel similarly when the claim is made that a wealth tax will “make us more free” and I really just have to ask make *who* more free, cause again, the last time we redistributed wealth it was exactly done in a equitable nor fair way. Haven’t seen a single one of these solutions that addresses that.

Part of me wonders if, historically, the things that people scream about are the things we should actually fear? I get the feeling that the case is that the things worth being fearful of haven’t been the things that people have actually screamed about.

The extreme focus in micro-correctness by agents is one of those problems I’m still figuring out how to tackle. This isn’t much different from human engineers, who can often get lost looking at individual trees instead of the whole forest. I assume solving the problem with require similar effort.

Claude is being insufferably stupid today. Multiple sessions doing random stuff, making things up to do, and spewing nonsense even when they’ve already read code that directly contradicts what they say. These aren’t even old sessions, they’re fresh ones! Today is a day I do not like LLMs or agents.

If you say “let’s not reinvent the wheel” you should feel bad for saying something that’s both hallow (a cliche) and profoundly stupid (we’ve reinvented the wheel countless times). Be more precise with your criticisms. Stop being boring and bland.

Every time I think I’ve finally finished this latest redesign round, there’s another small thing that’s not quite right. But we’re so close to being able to ship and I’m super excited.

I’m going to be extremely annoyed if I go to an Apple Store and wind up liking this phone.

The Nuanced Writer@skriptble.me

Spending $3,200 on a phone seems sort of insane. Although it being ~$130 per month makes that number feel less ridiculous. But still, that’s a lot of money.

Spending $3,200 on a phone seems sort of insane. Although it being ~$130 per month makes that number feel less ridiculous. But still, that’s a lot of money.

I seriously think people need to add more nuance to their definitions of “worst”. Or perhaps just open a couple more history books. Not like the long ago history, just to like the 80s and 90s.

We seem to make the same mistake of believing the marketing hype of AI labs instead of just sitting down and figuring out what these models are good at and what they aren’t. Our imaginations outrun reality in precisely the wrong ways. Unfortunately, we also lack imagination in the right ways.

There are things about frontend design that I didn’t understand previously and now I’m rapidly learning. For example, I didn’t quite understand why Storybook was a useful thing, but now that I’m building design systems it makes a ton of sense why you’d want to use it.

There is truly no shortcut through the sucky figure-out-how-to-use-new-tools growing pains that communities and industries go through. I really want to skip to the point where agents and LLMs don’t constantly oscillate between “super useful” and “dumber than raw sand” every few hours.

Part of what makes LLM generated text so jarring is the missing antecedents and the non-sequiturs. The first chunk of writings is coherent, but then a subsequent paragraph will use the second part of an analog that wasn’t introduced previously.

The Nuanced Writer@skriptble.me

Pangram looks really cool! I’ve similarly been annoyed at clearly LLM written content. I’ve been trying to out my finger in *what* it is that makes something have that LLM-feel. I’ve landed at it being a lot of very subtle things that amount to quite empty writing masquerading as substance.

With social media posts, LLM generated writing also tends to manufacture non-sequitur conclusions, quite often using a juxtaposition to make the statement feel more punchy. Much of the time, one branch of the juxtaposition wasn’t actually asserted nor was it ever argued in the writing.