I came across How To Write With an LLM the other day and I thought it was a nice piece with some good advice.
Sure, it’s brief. It only has two points! But I agree wholeheartedly, and they’re worth repeating.
The first rule is “You may not use a single word an LLM suggests to you” and it kind of sounds like a joke. But it’s not. I use these large language models a lot, and they’re really good at things like code. For prose, however, I can smell them a mile away. Several times this year I’ve gotten things from clients that I like where it’s absolutely clear they used an LLM to help them write it.
The problem is that if I can tell an LLM did the writing for them, who’s to say it didn’t do the thinking as well? And if the LLM did the thinking, how can I trust what I’m reading? I don’t know for sure the client actually knows what they’ve promised, or what they’re asking.
I use straight LLM output quite a lot for code, but somehow this is a bit different. I do ask the system to provide proof that things work, to standards we’ve already agreed upon. And I understand the technologies, so I know if it’s working or not. It’s hard to enforce this kind of rigor on the written word, in prose!
The second rule, also important, is to “avoid encouragement.” The point here is that the LLM tends to glaze you, and will constantly encourage your mediocre writing. But writing is hard, good writing involves a lot of thinking, and like with my point above, you cannot let the LLM take that step away from you. It will constantly suggest that your writing is excellent, but you have to trust your gut: no, not yet! It needs time to get good. Give it that time.