Hamel Husain argues AI text requires intensive editing to avoid slop
Public objections target unedited text rather than the technology itself.
23391109.8K
Original post unavailable.
Sentiment
Positive users endorse Shreyas Doshi's point that output quality trumps AI authorship while negative users criticize AI writing for lacking authenticity.
Pos
71.4%
Neg
28.6%
8 comments with sentiment.
Cluster Engagement
Digg Deeper
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
Related links
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
VIEWS6.2KBOOKMARKS7LIKES29REPLIES12
The vast majority of people simultaneously read much more than what is written and much less of what is written. For instance: After reading the tweet below, “Shreyas loves AI writing” would be the wrong conclusion. “Shreyas hates AI writing” would also be the wrong conclusion.
It really is this simple:
I’ve said this previously too. 4 years ago:
@G_S_Bhogal I've found that even well-meaning, smart people do this. They read what they want to read, not what is written. They read not to learn, not to reflect, but to respond with a point they really want to express. Your tweet is simply a great excuse for them to express that point.
I think if the writing is **good** then yes. But without heavy editing and iteration AI produces low density slop, making it more difficult to read. And 99% of people writing with AI aren’t cleaning up their writing I don’t think people are objecting to AI, they are objecting to slop. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slop
It really is this simple:
What gives me the ick is the lack of authenticity. I understand that somebody might want AI to think better, but when they write and it feels like AI, then it feels like that person didn't even take the time to read what they are sharing with us. That lack of them really wanting to say it or not is what gets me. It's like reading Ankur Warikoo. Or Sahil Bloom writing a thread on the day his baby is born. It's like, okay, you are pretending to say something. You really don't want to say it, but you are saying it because you think we will believe you. That is what I feel about AI writing. It looks like writing which does not have personal care. I'm not saying don't use AI to think, but I'm saying: do you really want to say something out there because you think all of us will be hoodwinked by, or do you want to say it because you want to say it? If they said it is AI writing or AI content - and didn't pretend it is coming from a real human I would be interested in reading it up. That is my current opinion. Example: what you are reading above is a lot of long-form writing is what I have dictated, but it is still my voice. What happens with AI is AI can create slop at any scale, and I will never know whether you actually checked it, whether it is worth my time or not. That is what I think AI writing represents to me. Either tell me that this is AI writing, but we have checked it and it is good, or at least dictate what you are writing. Typos and grammatical errors are fine. At least dictate. Be less perfect, but be you.
A Claude Chat for those interested in understanding the logic: https://claude.ai/share/1f15734f-efe6-48f8-9636-32ad038976de
@shreyas I think there is a step before this where you have to decide: is this worth my time to understand if this is useful or not? At that decision point, knowing whether or not it's written by AI is absolutely valuable because that has a lot of signal.
@shreyas Yes it’s just that there's an extremely high correlation between AI writing and "no" that is undeniable. It's so highly correlated that if you detect an AI smell within the first three sentences, it's usually a good idea to just stop reading and not investigate further.
@amuldotexe Some people like bananas. Some people like strawberries. If you like bananas, good for you. If you like strawberries, good for you. If you like both, good for you. If you like neither, good for you. (analogy shared by Dr. Kapil Gupta in my interview with him)
It's useless by definition. Slop imposes significant cognitive load on the reader, by burying info in unnecessary poetry, negative contrasts etc. AI writes like this by default unless carefully groomed. And de-slop skills don't completely solve the problem, as the behavior is engrained deeply in models.
@HamelHusain Is “slop” useful at times or is it always useless by definition?
@shreyas Yes it’s just that there's an extremely high correlation between AI writing and "no" that is undeniable. It's so highly correlated that if you detect an AI smell within the first three sentences, it's usually a good idea to just stop reading and not investigate further.
@HamelHusain Then could the ‘No’ branch of the flowchart still be a practical choice for oneself?
@HamelHusain Is “slop” useful at times or is it always useless by definition?
I think if the writing is **good** then yes. But without heavy editing and iteration AI produces low density slop, making it more difficult to read. And 99% of people writing with AI aren’t cleaning up their writing I don’t think people are objecting to AI, they are objecting to slop. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slop
@HamelHusain Then could the ‘No’ branch of the flowchart still be a practical choice for oneself?
It's useless by definition. Slop imposes significant cognitive load on the reader, by burying info in unnecessary poetry, negative contrasts etc. AI writes like this by default unless carefully groomed. And de-slop skills don't completely solve the problem, as the behavior is engrained deeply in models.
@shreyas Yes, I cannot reason through why I think so. Maybe it has something to do with being too choosy about what I read. Maybe some trauma or because of reading wrong books
@HamelHusain In practice how would that work differently than what you already do to decide whether something is worth your time? How would you blend the “written partly with AI” label into your personal algorithm for “read on vs. move on”?
@shreyas I think there is a step before this where you have to decide: is this worth my time to understand if this is useful or not? At that decision point, knowing whether or not it's written by AI is absolutely valuable because that has a lot of signal.
@amuldotexe @shreyas And it's fine, you are you because of your taste and you don't have to change. Sadly our kids will only read right books .... iykyk
Authentic writing is tedious and requires thought. AI, but, does it quickly however without nuance. Each to their own. After all there are some who like fiction, some non fiction and some both. No one's wrong. And it's a free world, consume what matches your taste. PS: I am a good writer but it's tedious to write 😁
@shreyas Hahaha I knew this will be the causal conclusion. Understanding the essence is also a skill :)
@shreyas yep. users don't read copy. they read the product they already expected.
@shreyas i remember reading this 4 years ago and have thought about it almost weekly since
Load more posts
@shreyas It's like my view on music: There's music I like, and music I don't like. Good or bad is all I care about, not labels and genres and cliques and who thinks it's cool or whatever.