5 ms·
In my experience, reading can make you a better writer sure. But it depends on what you read. Take AI for example, it's trained on a ton of text right? It can
by TechnoBabble199 27d ago
In my experience, reading can make you a better writer sure.
But it depends on what you read. Take AI for example, it's trained on a ton of text right? It can write, but can it write effectively? Is its writing really "good" ?
The point I'm trying to make is, there's a difference between reading & learning from the patterns of what you read - and actually learning the best way to write - to actually provide a reader with maximum comprehension (If it's educational) or entertainment (If it's fiction/fantasy)
Best example I can give on this is - you can learn to swim from watching hundreds of people swim - but you won't be an Olympic level swimmer unless you learn from the best.
If that makes sense.
- Kinrany 27d agoThe point about LLMs makes even less sense than drawing conclusions from "in mice" studies
- beardyw 27d agoYes, the difference between humans and LLMs is the small issue that LLMs have no idea what any of it means.
- TechnoBabble199 27d ago> The point about LLMs makes even less sense than drawing conclusions from "in mice" studies Nah I disagree. Humans learn via patterns so do LLMs. They are not human, they don't actually possess intellect - but there are some isomorphisms that can do cleanly translate. I think this one does. Also, if in mice studies didn't work - we wouldn't use mice for studies - so your example kinda proves my point.
- Kinrany 27d agoStudies in mice aren't used to confirm something relevant for humans, they're exploratory. "Learn via patterns" is hopelessly vague. Archival algorithms learn via patterns too.
- TechnoBabble199 27d ago[dead]