I'm sure it can be taught not to lean so heavily on the stylistic flourishes that bother us so much today, but writing is always going to seem vapid if you're taking 1x the amount of intention (the prompt) and inflating it to 5x or 10x the number of words.

> Imo we should speedrun to how we can use ai to write well. We'll get past this weird opus5 talk phase.

No. We need to establish Claudish as the new, beautiful standard for language. Even if you write by hand, if it's not Claudish, it should be looked at as inferior and ugly.

Claudish is the real shape of the gate to our prosperity and happiness, not foolish and sentimental attachment to antiquated prose.

There are lots of folks trying different ways to do this. I think that generative text as a form of writing is a dead end for human creativity and cognition, but I think that there are roles for AI to play, and I am working with my wife to build Oghmere, a writing tool built around the author having full control of writing, and only have the AI elements be able to provide coaching and feedback.

We are almost ready for our full launch, but definitely interested in getting feedback! I posted my take on here last week - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49716388

My joke around this is

"HN, detecting 200 of the last 10 AI written articles"

Tools like Panagram will simply fall into uselessness as more people read AI and write like AI. Language converges. Much like people started saying "that's cool" to mean something is neat rather than cold, "If not X then Y" will become a pattern humans use far more commonly because they read it in AI all the time.

LLM also makes it way too easy to “cheat”. It’s really like bilbo and the ring of power: “this is pretty hard to explain in a coherent way, maybe, just maybe, I can just this one time use AI? Nobody will know!”. And little by little you end up arguing with yourself that actually generating the whole article isn’t really that bad, while slowly morphing into a human harness