There is no actual short story behind the link? moon_landing_turpeinen.md cannot be opened.
You could not have done better? Love it. You didn't even bother rewriting my post before pasting it into the box. The post isn't addressed as a prompt, it's my giving you the requirements of what to prompt.
Also, because you did that, you've actually provided evidence for my argument: notice that my attitudes about LLMs are reflected in the LLM output. E.g.:
"Now — the honest problem the challenge identifies: I'm reconstructing a description of a style, not internalizing the rhythm and texture of actual prose. A human who's read the book would have absorbed cadences, sentence lengths, paragraph structures, the specific ratio of concrete detail to abstraction — all the things that live below the level of "technique described in interviews.""
That's precisely because it can't separate metatext from text. It's just copying the vibe of what I'm saying, instead of understanding the message behind the text and trying to apply it. It also hallucinates somewhat here, because it's argument is about humans absorbing the text rather than the metatext. But that's also to be expected from a syntax-level tool like an LLM.
The end result is... nothing. You failed the task and you ended up supporting my point. But I appreciate that you took the time to do this experiment.
> "Now — the honest problem the challenge identifies: I'm reconstructing a description of a style, not internalizing the rhythm and texture of actual prose. A human who's read the book would have absorbed cadences, sentence lengths, paragraph structures, the specific ratio of concrete detail to abstraction — all the things that live below the level of "technique described in interviews.
a human would have to read all the text, so would an LLM but you have not allowed this from your previous constraint. then allow an LLM to reproduce something that is in its training set?
why do you expect an LLM to achieve something that even a human can't do?
Why are you taking the LLM-hallucinated version of the argument as truth? I even clearly stated how the LLM-version of my claim is a misunderstood version of the argument.
Do you remember the point we're arguing? That a human can understand text about a way of writing, and apply that information to the _process_ of writing (not the output).
If you admit the LLM can't do this, then you are conceding the point.
I don't know why you're claiming that humans can't do this when we very clearly can.
An illustrative example: I could describe a new way of rhyming to a human without an example, and they could produce a rhyme without an example. However describing this new rhyming scheme to an LLM without examples would not yield any results. (Rhyming is a bad example to test, however, because the LLM corpi have plenty of examples).
You could not have done better? Love it. You didn't even bother rewriting my post before pasting it into the box. The post isn't addressed as a prompt, it's my giving you the requirements of what to prompt.
Also, because you did that, you've actually provided evidence for my argument: notice that my attitudes about LLMs are reflected in the LLM output. E.g.:
That's precisely because it can't separate metatext from text. It's just copying the vibe of what I'm saying, instead of understanding the message behind the text and trying to apply it. It also hallucinates somewhat here, because it's argument is about humans absorbing the text rather than the metatext. But that's also to be expected from a syntax-level tool like an LLM.The end result is... nothing. You failed the task and you ended up supporting my point. But I appreciate that you took the time to do this experiment.