I really did like the author's framing there, but I think there is a different, simpler way to put it:

Why would you think that asking someone else (that is, another human) to write something (and then reviewing it) is the same thing as writing it yourself?

You may trust the other writer's opinions and knowledge, but it will not have the same tone, structure, word choice, understanding, or narrative flow as it would if you were to write it yourself.

And when it's an LLM, you should not trust it's "opinions" and "knowledge", because it does not have either of those things. The appearance of those things is just that, an appearance.

> First, once the text is on the page, it’s easy to passively let the approximate word suffice, rather than thinking about word choice in the same effortful, active way we do when generating prose de novo.

Meanwhile, me, as an English non-native speaker, ended up discussing two sentences I want send to HR for ten minutes while applying to a job.

I do believe there's generally a bias to accept something that's already written. The much bigger reason though is why you let somebody else write it to begin with.

It might just be that not thinking carefully about every sentence/wording was the exact thing that made you use AI to begin with.

> I spent a considerable amount of time over the past two weeks reviewing and improving a work document that was the output of an LLM.

I had the same experience with texts where I have a very detailed expectation of the desired result. This is just a general limitation. For code, there's the saying "the precise description of the solution is already the code". Describing X is a simplification of X, oftentimes it's fine guess the gaps. But when it's not, it didn't help to describe X, you have to manifest X itself.

A workflow I've recently discovered for myself that provides a kind of middle ground: I'll ask the LLM to write a first draft in a language that isn't the one the piece should ultimately be in. Then I'll use the LLM's first draft as a blueprint, to write a first draft myself in the intended target language. This fights my brain's temptation to just shut off, and forces every word choice to actually be mine. Then I'll hand that over to the LLM for editorial suggestions and iterate from there.

Writing is thinking. In many situations where we are called on to write, what is actually needed is thought.

It's probably annoying the way I oversimplify things, but you reminded me of something I read somewhere.

Some Jazz musician was asked to define Jazz.

He couldn't really, his answer was something like: 'I don't know. But I'll know when I hear it'.

To add something to the discussion directly: thinking requires vocabulary. Vocabulary is the currency of thought.

You can usually express an idea with a few thoughts, or many. The audience, and amount of details chosen should always be kept in mind. Writing helps you to remember vocabulary and word choice when expressing ideas.

While I mostly agree with you, what is the real difference between an editor saying, 'when generating prose de novo' sounds pretentious to an American audience so let's use 'when writing from scratch' instead, versus an LLM giving the same advice?

Not that it's necessarily better but it's the kind of thing an editor might pick up and so why would you reject the advice if it's a machine giving it rather than a human?

Same flow as translating from your native tongue to a foreign language.

Going from foreign to native is easier than native to foreign. The latter requires completely different brain paths and a lot more understanding of the language to actually get to something correct.