Just a heads up - the footnotes aren't present in the app and don't work properly on the web version. I think they're linked to the paid version of the post or something.
Appreciate the insight into your workflow. The way you're using it matches my own intuitions about what sort of stuff it could be useful for. Claude's response to the ar…
Just a heads up - the footnotes aren't present in the app and don't work properly on the web version. I think they're linked to the paid version of the post or something.
Appreciate the insight into your workflow. The way you're using it matches my own intuitions about what sort of stuff it could be useful for. Claude's response to the article suggested a thought to me. The part:
> 1. Writing capability: While you mentioned not liking my writing style, this might be an overgeneralization. Al writing capabilities can vary significantly depending on the specific instructions and context provided. With proper guidance, I can often adjust my style to better match a user's preferences.
I feel like this is a good demonstration of what LLMs are not good at/valuable for, and why a lot of it feels like such empty blather. Everything it wrote is true, but, like you wrote about using it for critique in general, it's vibes-level. It's going to say something like this regardless of *how* much in practice its suggestions will help. What's missing is that a (helpful) human would only write that if the advice crossed some threshold of genuine usefulness to me given my query. If it's just Claude writing that, I have no idea how seriously to take its critique.
Just a heads up - the footnotes aren't present in the app and don't work properly on the web version. I think they're linked to the paid version of the post or something.
Appreciate the insight into your workflow. The way you're using it matches my own intuitions about what sort of stuff it could be useful for. Claude's response to the article suggested a thought to me. The part:
> 1. Writing capability: While you mentioned not liking my writing style, this might be an overgeneralization. Al writing capabilities can vary significantly depending on the specific instructions and context provided. With proper guidance, I can often adjust my style to better match a user's preferences.
I feel like this is a good demonstration of what LLMs are not good at/valuable for, and why a lot of it feels like such empty blather. Everything it wrote is true, but, like you wrote about using it for critique in general, it's vibes-level. It's going to say something like this regardless of *how* much in practice its suggestions will help. What's missing is that a (helpful) human would only write that if the advice crossed some threshold of genuine usefulness to me given my query. If it's just Claude writing that, I have no idea how seriously to take its critique.