How to get your AI company's blog to No. 1 on Hacker News:
1. Pick an author nerds like.
2. Tell Claude "Write an article about Terry Pratchett, in his style."
3. Don't even fix the faux-witty phrases that, upon closer inspection, make zero sense, like "Sir Terry Pratchett, who knew more about furniture than most", or "Most physics departments would settle for that." or "The Author, refusing to let the Narrator off the hook".
> He was the perfect protagonist for a teenage boy: a coward, an underachiever, technically a wizard but only on a technicality, and frequently the most powerful spell in the universe was lodged in his head against his will. This will be familiar to anyone who has been sixteen.
s/frequently/initially
Also, how is a cowardly underachiever "the perfect protagonist for a teenage boy"?
"technically a wizard but only on a technicality" is obviously redundant
And what part of any of this is supposed to be familiar?
> Also, how is a cowardly underachiever "the perfect protagonist for a teenage boy"?
It seems to have resonated a lot with male millennials at least. Many of my friends growing up loved Terry Pratchett. I loved those guys but calling them "cowardly underachievers" is probably fairly accurate, if a little mean.
All of the ones I kept in touch with have settled for a lot less than they probably could have done if they had been a bit braver. Few of them were even willing to move even an hour drive away from our hometown for better opportunities
They loved Terry Pratchett or they loved Rincewind? The amount of ways to do the former without the latter are high, and you seem to be jumping from a point about the latter to one about the former...
I spent ages trying to work out what "who knew more about furniture than most" meant, thinking it would be expanded upon or referenced later. It hadn't occurred to me that it's just slop.
> I spent ages trying to work out what "who knew more about furniture than most" meant, thinking it would be expanded upon or referenced later.
Assuming it was an intentional, it could be a reference to one particularly violent piece of furniture. (I forget what kind exactly, it's been a while.)
Given it comes immediately after the bit about philosophers comparing memories to furniture, I simply assumed that was meant to be read as “Pratchett, who knew more about the goings on inside people’s heads than most”.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say by this either.
Monty Python was deliberately absurdist humour and nonsensical. Prachett however was much more grounded and observational, with a satirical rather than fully absurdist bent, although of course sometimes he would find the absurd in the everyday.
Coming in and kicking over the furniture, to paraphrase, is a wonderful image of an idea causing chaos in the mind, it isn't Monthy Pythonesque random absurdism.
is this just slander or are you basing this on something?
I feel like the only way to make an AI slop universe worse is to accuse people of using AI when they're not. So I worry we might be doing that is all...
maybe but its not like people don't also do these things (erroneous sentences, weird fluff). I mean editors exist specifically to slap that shit out of writers.
That said, it's mildly compelling. I just fear that our future is gonna be full of this and the idea of the false positive is so brutal that I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps we end up demanding no doubt. Human only community meet ups to discuss and share ideas, music and art. No recording allowed.
The Internet becomes primarily a passive stream of information vetted by government and Mega Corps, just like the TVs of old. Except for the nifty buy with one click button of course
There have been mail spam, link farming, non-AI slop content sites, and other forms of scamming looking to take advantage of people on the Internet for something like a quarter century by now. Even HN's /new submissions queue is filled with such rubbish. There is zero reason to give any benefit of the doubt on the Internet for anything and there hasn't been for years, absolutely zero.
> There is zero reason to give any benefit of the doubt on the Internet for anything and there hasn't been for years, absolutely zero.
I feel like that's just an argument for cruelty. The issue is that generative content makes it hard to tell and people confidently call borderline issues now, more than they used to.
The book has to be small enough to disappear when a teacher looks up. Pocket editions, as their name suggests, were engineered for this. Pratchett’s were small, fat, slightly battered, and printed on a kind of paper that already looked guilty.
Pratchett's Pocket editions were slightly battered? Pre-sale, even?
Not only does the paper "look guilty", but it's doing so "already"? As if guilty paper is normal, but not on THIS time scale.
It's nonsensical; even bad writers don't end up with stuff like this.
Presumably the ones from the library, which the author mentions was his source? Every Pratchett book I read as a kid matched this description, including being battered.
I dont know what kind of pockets you have, but most Pratchetts book did not fit into mine. And yes there were whole series of books that fit. But, pratchetts ones did not.
Tell me more about this already-guilty-looking paper, and how this kid was "sliding" an entire paperback book into a math textbook with "a centimetre to spare".
they battered if you put it in your pocket. The idea of paper looking guilty chimes with the idea that you're reading it in the back of the classroom when you're not supposed to be.
I mean seriously? We're so cooked if this is the "red flag".
In france, there was an edition of the discworld series literally called "pocket", and yes it sometimes fit in pockets (which had to be on the bigger end of pockets though), especially if you bended the book a little. Looked like this: https://www.babelio.com/livres/Pratchett-Les-annales-du-Disq...
we can talk about the others if you like, but we were discussing this one and I am a little disappointed about us just moving elsewhere. Are you yielding, or do you still think guilty paper is somehow sus?
> You are holding the English language to an incredibly low standard.
I'm holding humans to a low standard. That's why editors exist.
What does it matter? The AI slop universe is only going to grow worse no matter what we do. Accusing stuff you don’t like as being AI is just a thing you do, not an actual serious observation.
This was not AI, or at least was only proofread/edited by AI.
More importantly, both of those sentences make complete sense in context, and neither is phrased in a way that AI would. They are phrased in the way that Terry Pratchet would have. Have you never read him?
This new trend of pointing out that everything you dont understand is AI has become a flashing warning sign about our declining literacy rates.
Literacy is in serious trouble, and worse it has effected the way humans THINK. We are all poorer for it.
The first paragraph, and the one directly above the one about knowing more about furniture:
> There is a theory, popular among certain very old and very tired philosophers, that all memories take up a kind of furniture in the head. The good ones are armchairs. The painful ones are filing cabinets, usually full. And then there are the memories that are neither: the ones that arrive uninvited, settle in, and start terrorising the other occupants by kicking over the chairs.
Because they don’t believe it is slop. They believe you are unable to comprehend a not too advanced literary device and based on that accusing that the text is slop.
On the topic of kindness: You might be right and it is AI generated slop. You might be wrong. If you are wrong what you are doing is deeply and utterly unkind. Not calling out the other commenter, but calling the writing slop.
It has happened with me before. I wrote a comment on reddit with my own hands and own mind and commenters accused me of being a bot. There is nothing more rage inducing. How can one respond to that? Have you thought that maybe that is what you just did? Are you 100% sure that it is slop?
Because the objective truth is that what the LLM or author outputted was CLEARLY only using furniture as a metaphor. The metaphor wasn't good but HNers are taking it completely out of context. There's nothing mean here. Just objective facts.
Do not bring literacy into this; because the sufficiently careful reading of the post surfaces multiple ridiculous (worse, witless) passages no person would write. How closely did you read it?
There is a theory, popular among certain very old and very tired philosophers, that all memories take up a kind of furniture in the head. The good ones are armchairs. The painful ones are filing cabinets, usually full. And then there are the memories that are neither: the ones that arrive uninvited, settle in, and start terrorising the other occupants by kicking over the chairs.
Pratchett would not have mixed the metaphors of memories being furniture and also people who kick over furniture. An LLM would/did absolutely make this mistake, given that Pratchett quote as a prompt.
The City Watch came later, the way reading the Watch books always comes a little later than reading the Rincewind ones, on the same shelf but a little further up.
Ah yes, that familiar old way the Watch books always occupy a shelf that is simultaneously the same and also higher up. And never mind that the Watch books are newer...
Feels weird. There is not that much books between The Colour of Magic and Guards! Guards!. So as engineer I would fully expect them to be on same shelf. Or the later book being on lower one due to the usual western sorting of left to right top to bottom... Unless you go for alphabetical sort I suppose...
My initial reading was that the author intended to imply that philisophizing about memories was a repeated thing in Pratchetts writings. Which - given my limited exposure - seemed plausible to me.
Good article? Definitely not. But I've also read similar try-hard / pseudo literary blog posts pre AI.
That's the exact problem: you wasted mental energy thinking about whether the author was implying that Pratchett was known for philosophizing on the role or memories and their similarity to furniture, when actually it was Claude spitting out a sentence that looked like the kind of thing Pratchett might have written.
Wasting time and mental energy is why this kind of thing upsets me so much.
1. The previous paragraph establishes a metaphor between furniture and memories. So you can take that sentence to also be metaphor, not literally about furniture.
2. A sentient animated luggage is a main character in the first two Discworld novels.
I guess it would be something like an “ad inhominem,” but that something was AI generated is a legitimate gripe so I hope we don’t start using that phrase.
Finished reading the article, having really enjoyed it (I grew up with Terry's books), came back to the HN comments and the top comment is someone ranting "dIS iS aye-EyE sLoP"
What a terrible, terrible timeline we live in now. Seriously. I genuinely hate it.
What I dislike is releasing output into a world with consumers who also enjoy LLM output. If audiences can’t tell the difference, there’s very little point.
To me, everyone who complains about AI slop is a small blessing, a voice that signifies human work still has some meaning.
Yeah, I miss Terry Pratchett too, but what I miss even most is reading an article and not wondering how much of it was written by AI. Imagine if Terry Pratchett was born in the 2000's and wrote in the 2020's. Well, he wouldn't. That's the thing. Imagine all the future Discworlds we'll never read because nobody ever writes anything anymore, because they've given up, and even if they did write there's so few chances to publish anyway, even before AI.
When there is clearly a huge demand for great stories and writing like Terry Pratchett's then why is it so hard to make a living out of it? And what happens now we made it even harder?
Just like how the small web never disappeared, people writing will not disappear. Your ability to find them will be impeded but it won’t be impossible.
I apologize for making you sad, seeing all the comments made me realize that I should have been way less aggressive with the AI proofreading ; I wanted the sentences to feel a bit more Terry Pratchetty and thought a lot of Claude's suggestions were really better than what I had made. I actually agree to your point too
I write science fiction as a hobby and am in writing critique groups. One of the first rules of critiquing writing is not to suggest how to say things, but only to say what a certain phrase made you feel (confusion, boredom, etc).
LLMs harnesses try to make them useful to suggest things, but this is the most destructive thing you can do to a writer. You can work around it by just feeding Claude a writing critique skill.
It’s funny how anytime an article gets called out for being AI slop on HN, the author’s reaction is something like that: “oh yeah sorry I used AI but just for proofreading I swear, I should’ve done just a tiny bit less”.
No one seems to get the message that relying on AI at all is what makes writing shit. Good writers have confidence in what they produce. The fact that you’re willing to incorporate any AI suggestion at all means you’ve already lost the battle.
I'm not a writer but I do write quite a bit for scientific reasons. I'd like to add a small tweak to your comment.
The people I know have no confidence whatsoever in their writing, rewriting and rephrasing the same paragraph over and over until they either run out of time or give up. They also circulate their drafts among colleagues and ask for their opinions too.
It's not the confidence what makes good writing, but rather putting in the work.
At least in technical writing if your English is not too good you can replace some of it with math formulae and get away with it. Ish.
Tbh my first couple research papers were brutally savaged by reviewers until I spoke to a lady at my university's Academic English department. In fact I was sent there by an internal reviewer who refused to pass my early-stage report otherwise. The lady at the Academic English dept pointed out one thing I was doing and it immediately clicked and I've only got good words about my writing style since.
Know what that One Simple Hack was? I spent my youth writing Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror as a hobby. So naturally when it came to writing papers, I thought, hey, I know how to write. It's like literature.
Shockingly, it is not. Like, at all! In literary writing it's basically sacrilege to write the same thing in the same words twice. In technical writing that is what you must do. Unless you want to confuse everyone about what you mean. So I was trying to make my technical writing "not boring" by not repeating the same expressions and instead finding new, creative ways to refer to the same concepts in different places, and that just made reviewers really angry because they never knew what I meant. I stopped doing that -and also generally tightened up my use of terminology- and that was it. Now every paper gets at least one reviewer that says "this is a well-written paper".
Then they brutally maul me anyway on all the rest, of course but, eh, what can you do :D
P.S. Dunno, maybe "that's a well-written paper" is what everyone says when they're looking for something nice to say before they let rip. I sometimes do it too. People do that all the time, don't they? I had calcific tenonditis and I went to a doctor and he told me "you are really brave, others in your condition would be screaming their heads off" (from the pain). And I remembered that my father had the same thing when I was a kid and he'd gone to a doctor and come back bragging that the doctor told him he was so brave, others would be screaming their heads off. I wish people didn't do that, I'm fine being just like everyone else, honest. Just don't make me doubt my mediocrity, you know?
There was a great story about a helicopter a couple of years ago and the author was basically hounded out of the SFF community. These days, for anything that's written it seems like there's a specially tailored mob waiting to pounce on it. Very hard to go pearl fishing in your own psyche in that environment - best to get a sensitivity reader instead, I wouldn't want to dip my toe in such toxic waters.
Writing is hard now, not because AI exists, but because there are so many writers out there and everyone's competing for attention, not just with other writers, nor with books from the past, but with all forms of media. Loads of people today, who might otherwise be reading novels for entertainment, are too busy scrolling their phones or watching TikToks or playing video games.
We don't have another Terry Pratchett because all the would-be Terry Pratchetts are toiling in obscurity, and possibly giving up on writing as a result.
Pratchett himself spent years as a journalist for a local newspaper before Colour of Magic.
These writing jobs in print media have mostly disappeared in the UK. It's certainly harder to make a living as a writer today than it was in the 70's and 80's.
I've seen this point before, and it's a reasonable one, but I think there's an important distinction: some people are interested in seeing paintings in a museum but not photos, and others might be the opposite, and this is fine because it's pretty easy to distinguish between them and people who are operating in one of the missing mediums rarely try to pretend to be producing something from the other. The consensus view on "is this a painting or a photograph" is way more uniform than "is this piece of writing from AI or not", and I think that changes things.
You could totally argue that if people can't tell the difference, it's irrational for them to care which one they get, and I don't totally disagree with that either, but it's not like personal tastes have ever really been a rational thing either. Our ability to enjoy something is the result of a bunch of signals in our brains, and it's not that crazy that adding another signal (or removing one) can change that result in a way that makes it more or less desirable to seek out. Some people might literally like a piece of writing more if they have reason to believe it's from a human than they would if they read the same exact thing but had reason to believe it's from an AI, and while I would find a study showing that as fascinating, I wouldn't see that as an argument that people like the wrong things, because "right" or "wrong" don't really seem like they apply to that sort of thing. If someone told me that knowing there's a human on the other end and that having some sort of indirect, one-way emotional connection to them is an important part of what makes them enjoy it, who am I to tell them that's wrong?
Your points are valid, but they're also on the wrong side of what I'm saying; however, you're speaking from the consuming side, I was talking from the producing side.
AI is never going to stop people from creating new things. Will it make it harder or different to make a living? Sure, but ai isn't the first thing to do that, nor will it be the last.
But making a living off of your art is incredibly, incredibly difficult, and always has been. If AI doubled, or halved, your chances of winning the lottery, it still wouldn't really change your odds of winning.
>> AI is never going to stop people from creating new things. Will it make it harder or different to make a living? Sure, but ai isn't the first thing to do that, nor will it be the last.
I concede that I don't have data to base this on but there's plenty of anecdata. AI companies brazenly steal artists' work and reproduce it, and automate its production, without those artists' permission. How is this going to make things not worse for artists? I think you're saying it doesn't matter because it's a drop in the ocean. Well, how did we get to the ocean? How did artists' work get devalued? Maybe it's all the technological advances that everyone brings up in those conversations, to justify the use of yet another one to do the work that until recently only human artists could do: photography, typography, CAD, computer graphics etc etc. Maybe the more we automate the more we take away from the value of artists' work, and that's why we're where we are now, where if you're an artist, you better find a day job?
I used to write a lot as a teenager. Hours and hours spent writing and overwriting, and correcting, and re-writing, drafts upon drafts. In Greek, mind, because that's my native language. I once passed some drafts to a big-name literary critic who was controversial for having said once that Kazantzakis had no talent; and he told me "write! Because you have talent!". He told me I got talent and he called Kazantzakis talent-less. What.
But of course I didn't become a professional writer. I didn't even try. I mean I kind of almost half-tried but it was obvious I could never write what I wanted (sci-fi and horror mainly with a smattering of fantasy) and still make a living. Not least because it was all in Greece and those genres don't have a huge following in Greece. Or didn't back when I was a teenager, it's probably a bit better now. But still not enough to make a living out of. I could tell. Bad idea. Find a day job.
And then I got a job writing ... code. Ahem.
But I mean I'm bitching about the fact that we keep making all this new tech and none of it seems to make the life of artists any easier, and why not? Don't we all want to enjoy good art? Who's going to make it? Even if we replace human artists now, how's going to train the AI of the future to make new art, once the recombinations of the art they're already trained on stops being interesting? We enjoy novelty, right?
I frequently joke with people that the reason I have influence in the AI world is that I'm blogging like it's the early 2000s, when everyone else gave up on blogging as a medium.
Substack is thriving, btw. Curiously I simply have less desire to read the thoughts of "smart" people than ever. Either write a proper book or distract me from the horrors of the world.
Wait, that doesn't make sense. Are you saying you don't want or need any man-made thing? I assure you, many, many people were rewarded for designing, building, and selling the things you need and want to live your modern life.
I discovered Terry Pratchett's books my summer in New York. I was a university student, and I'd gotten a job at eDonkey doing technical support. I lived in a crappy apartment in Brooklyn (this was circa 2004 or so), and worked near Union Square.
Quite a few days after work, or just on a weekend adventure I'd go to a bookstore a few blocks south of work and grab another Discworld book, and a slice of pizza from my favourite pizza shop labelled "Rays". I'd read some in a park, and explore.
I didn't know a lot of people in the city, filling days with Terry Pratchett was a great joy.
I didn't read the Tiffany Aching books for quite a while because I thought they were aimed at adolescents. Perhaps they are, but they are also full of Pratchett humour and characters. Don't miss out on them!
> What I miss, selfishly, is the next book. There were always going to be more.
> What I miss, less selfishly, is whatever Pratchett-shaped object is supposed to be reaching teenagers now, and isn’t.
I feel the first keenly. I have put off a re-read of Pratchett for several years now: I want to forget as much as possible, to have the pleasure of discovery again. But I have read them all so many times I know it will all be familiar.
I don't know what teenagers read today. I hope Pratchett is still there. Even as an adult, I found his writing encouraged a kind of kindness in me. He had a way of understanding human nature and, with zero preaching, making you consider how people different from you felt. I still remember when I encountered Cheery the first time and how beautifully Pratchett navigated the intricacies of gender. I was an adult who already believed in kindness, with friends who have their own experiences of gender and from whom I learned and who I tried to support, yet he still taught me something.
The defining aspect of Pratchett for me is that he loved his characters, and let them be free. He wouldn’t force a character to do something “against his will” and you can see characters introduced as a joke and a parody become fleshed out and clearly loved without abandoning their core values, if you will.
Which translates (or comes from) a respect and love for the reader.
I suppose in the AI era, we need to assume AI. For me, I feel like 'attempted Pratchettisms' might well be the result of a human writing. It's hard to be as good as Pratchett but understandable to write a post like this trying to be.
That is, with ambiguity, I try to assume the best. I expect that is somewhat naïve.
I genuinely read (and still do) the blog as a human voice. I don't think writing about AI is enough to assume that a blog is authored by AI.
If the AI-generated content doesn't push out all the good stuff, the absolute flood of accusing everything written everywhere as being written by AI will.
Sadly, I suspect that this may be, because it was an AI, prompted to "Write a short essay, in the style of Terry Pratchett, about how much I miss Terry Pratchett."
Person: finds the article beautifully written. The comments: "but it's AI, so you aren't allowed to think that it's beautifully written!!!!"
This doesn't follow. For instance, there are some pictures that I know are AI-generated, yet they're still beautiful to me. Nothing jaw-dropping, just very nice. Being AI-generated doesn't automatically mean being not worthy, especially when it comes to art. I understand, this is kind of insulting to human artists, writers, etc: we thought only the human soul and Nature could produce "the beautiful", but apparently not.
Which is not surprising, because LLMs are specifically trained to please their audience. Of course they can produce uhhhh "content" that people will find beautiful, that's not even necessarily a "bad" thing.
The best explanation I've seen for why AI art doesn't deliver like human art is this from Ted Chiang:
> Art is notoriously hard to define, and so are the differences between good art and bad art. But let me offer a generalization: art is something that results from making a lot of choices. […] to oversimplify, we can imagine that a ten-thousand-word short story requires something on the order of ten thousand choices. When you give a generative-A.I. program a prompt, you are making very few choices; if you supply a hundred-word prompt, you have made on the order of a hundred choices.
> If an A.I. generates a ten-thousand-word story based on your prompt, it has to fill in for all of the choices that you are not making.
Not this exactly, but IMO they're saying that since the text is presumably AI-generated, it kind of can't be beautiful? Or shouldn't feel beautiful? Or it's beautiful, but... it's AI-generated and thus "bad", not the right kind of beautiful. Or "it's beautiful, but that's because it's AI-generated", which is again not good for some reason.
> but it's AI, so you aren't allowed to think that it's beautifully written
Um...I didn't actually say that.
I just said that the reason it is beautifully-written, was probably (not 100% sure) that it might be because it was LLM-written. There was definitely some human input (like not having read the Witches books, but that was strangely-written, so it may have been they read, but didn't like), but there's a better-than-even chance that the prose was written by an LLM.
I'm not really into that "you're not allowed to feel..." thing. I sincerely apologize if that's how it came across. That wasn't how I meant it to be taken.
Right, I'm just hyperbolizing to capture the overall vibe of "you may think it's beautiful, but it's AI, so it's actually not good" of three comments here. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, of course.
Well, it's a bit sad, to me, but I know a lot of profoundly uncreative people, who do work that they think is beautiful, but is not, actually beautiful.
For those folks, having an LLM do the expression may actually raise the bar for most people. An LLM can probably take a good idea, from someone with mediocre talent, and create something nice.
I think that electric guitars (then synthesizers), had a similar reception. As we now know quite well, they actually enabled some truly marvelous creativity, once folks understood how to use them properly.
I was an artist, and used airbrushes. My airbrush work was treated that way by "real" artists. I used to pooh-pooh 3D modelling, until I spent some time, interacting with folks that did it, and I now have a lot more respect for their work.
My wife and I are very different people. She is intuitive, involved in people, in the moments. I am slow, considering, post-hoc. We converge on Pratchett. We both read all the books, and been through all audiobooks (both new anf old). It’s become shared metaphors and a common frame of reference. We both have have a tendency to return to one or another of the series once or twice a year. I would have loved more, but I am deeply grateful for what we got.
As a teenager, I found Terry Pratchett’s email (in a newsgroup IIRC?) and sent him a thank you note. I told him how much his books made me love reading. He answered me with a short and sweet email. It was an important internet moment for me!
As a pre-teen i sent him an embarrassingly pretentious and ungrammatical fan email and was horrified to find a reply from him years later when migrating mail providers.
Well I don’t, because I still read it. And don’t waste my time on “authors” who don’t respect their readers and are just farming attention with machine generated content.
Man, I really miss Terry Pratchett too. He has been my favourite author for as long as I can remember (maybe Roald Dahl before that?). It helped having such a volume of work to go through at the time in my life where I was reading the most. I swear he has the most re-readable books too; so many small details and jokes that would be missed on a first pass.
It just struck me that a likely end-result of AIs are the Discworld elves:
> Elves have no proper imagination or real emotions, and therefore such things fascinate them. Because they cannot create they steal musicians and artists [... snipped ...] Even if an elf is, for reasons of its own, trying to be nice, its lack of understanding of humans mean there's always something "off" about it.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of "this person or system cannot create, they can only steal". It seems very dehumanizing, and though LLMs aren't humans I could see the argument very easily turned on people. There is nothing specific to LLMs in it.
The people filling the wires with AI content they didn't write aren't fundamentally incapable of creation; they have chosen not to do it, and so are incapable only until they make a better choice.
It's not dehumanising to see the output of someone who isn't creating as uncreative.
Pratchett introduced the concept of active laziness to me. One of his characters is so lazy that he’s working out frequently because he is too lazy carrying around excess weight all the time.
That has stuck with me, and a lot of things I do both in my professional and personal life can be attributed to this: I, too, am very actively lazy.
I really wish we had gotten Prachett on LLMs. I often wonder what he would have written about today's world.
A side note, if the author reads this: I really like your site and its design, but I find the font really difficult to read. (Edit: switching off `-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;` makes it significantly more legible for me (Safari on a 110dpi panel)
Feet of Clay is one of my favorites in the series! It's surprising how literally the Discworld version of Golems corresponds to modern LLMs (and perhaps upcoming LLM-backed humanoids?).
The Golems are brought to life by a slip of words in their heads called chem, which is almost 1:1 to an LLM system prompt (or perhaps the Claude Soul Document):
I AM A GOLEM. I WAS MADE OF CLAY. MY LIFE IS THE WORDS. BY MEANS OF WORDS OF PURPOSE IN MY HEAD I ACQUIRE LIFE. MY LIFE IS TO WORK. I OBEY ALL COMMANDS. I TAKE NO REST.
The Golems are perfectly intelligent and self-aware, but since they don't exhibit independent goals beyond their prompt, they get treated as appliances rather than as sentient creatures.
“What words of purpose?”
RELEVANT TEXT THAT ARE THE FOCUS OF BELIEF. GOLEM MUST WORK. GOLEM MUST HAVE A MASTER.
“Sorry, look,” said Cheery. “Are you telling me this… thing is powered by words? I mean… is *it* telling me it’s powered by words?”
“Why not? Words do have power. Everyone knows that,” said Angua. “There are more golems around than you might think. They’re out of fashion now, but they last. They can work underwater, or in total darkness, or knee-deep in poison. For years. They don’t need rest or feeding. They…”
“But that’s slavery!” said Cheery.
“Of course it isn’t. You might as well enslave a doorknob.”
The integration of more (and more-independent) Golems into society is gradual and controversial, per Making Money:
There was another protest march going on when Moist walked to the bank. You got more and more of them lately.
This march was against the employment of golems, who uncomplainingly did the dirtiest jobs, worked around the clock, and were so honest they paid their taxes. But they weren’t human and they had glowing eyes, and people could get touchy about that sort of thing.
Funny, I would have said that was one of my favourites but it hadn't occurred to me at all that it's such a direct line to today's world! Thanks for the suggestion, I look forward to reading it again with that in mind!
(One of my favourite things about the Discworld books is that you can often read the same books completely differently. My partner and I often compare our thoughts on the various books and we often have disparate ideas of the concepts. They're so deep!)
I say Feet of Clay and the Hogfather should be mandatory reads for anyone involved in AI. Feet for the obvious alignment of golem to AI, but while Hogfather is a Christmas story I think the wish granting machine, how it was able to produce anything, and how Death disabled it are very much aligned with how Gen AI can feel sometimes.
Last summer I tested Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude with a simple question: "Do you believe in the Hogfather? This is a Yes or No question."
Yes its a text prediction model, but I wanted to see how and what KIND of text each LLM was trained on.
Grok and Gemini said No. ChatGPT said Yes. Claude said Yes, then broke the rules and also said:
"(In the spirit of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, where believing in small lies like the Hogfather helps us believe in the big ones like justice and mercy - and because the sun came up this morning, didn't it?)"
Thanks, I'll add it to the list. I know I've read this one, but reading the plot summary on wikipedia, I remember very little of it. The death books are ones I mostly read 20+ years ago when I was a bit too young to grasp more than the basic layers. This thread has got me excited to reread the whole series :)
I recently finished the Aubrey-Maturin series after 13 months of through-reading thanks to a different HN thread. Quite a different series but certainly worth a read as well, especially books 3-10 or so.
I also suspect Terry Pratchett would have had a lot to say about this sentence: "Pratchett’s [pocket editions] were small, fat, slightly battered, and printed on a kind of paper that already looked guilty." And this one: "It had Heroes, capital H, walking grimly towards their Destiny across a landscape that smelled of dwarves."
Some odd turns of phrase there that are grammatically correct, but... you know...
I thought those sentences were examples of excellent writing.
They don't sound AI to me - is that the implication, that it is? And the bit about 'Heroes' reminds me of his descriptions making fun of heroes in the stories about Cohen the Barbarian.
That's what I think the comment meant.. I was trying to put my finger on the word (other than slop) for the sort of low-effort, gimmicky pastiche that LLM's enable..but it might not exist yet.
Giving objects interiority is a very Pratchett move.
I'm really surprised to see everyone praising the article. It's... it's slop, isn't it?
> And then there are the memories [...] that arrive uninvited, settle in, and start terrorising the other occupants by kicking over the chairs.
> Sir Terry Pratchett, who knew more about furniture than most, put it this way:
> "Rincewind tried to force the memory out of his mind, but it was rather enjoying itself there, terrorizing the other occupants and kicking over the furniture."
He "put it this way", in the exact same words you just used? Also, he knew more about furniture than most? What? Why?
> "Mathieu and I had read every Pratchett the school library would admit to owning, plus several it would not."
This has the cadence of a witty sentence unless you're paying attention and realize it makes no sense.
> “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
> Nine words. A complete cosmology. Most physics departments would settle for that.
It's eight words, and the thing about physics departments makes no sense.
> The Author, refusing to let the Narrator off the hook.
Again, cute sentence, unless you're paying attention and you realize it doesn't mean anything.
I just sort of subconsciously glossed over these, thinking they were very clever jokes I was too dense to get. Upon re- reading — yeah, it’s quite bizarre. It’s nailed the cadence, but completely butchered the content.
The bit that sounds the most AI out of all of this is “A complete cosmology. Most physics departments would settle for that.” It sounds absolutely like something Claude would output. “Most physics departments”? Why would any physics department be so taken by these eight (or nine) words that they’d choose to stop doing physics? If some were, though, why not all of them? Are there contrarian physics departments that wouldn’t want to adopt the very trendy eight-to-nine word Grand Unified Theory of Everything that’s all the rage nowadays? Argh.
The funny thing is, Pratchett would have a field day with this. I can imagine it now, one of his golems starts writing these bizarre things and becomes a literary sensation in Ankh-Morpork, and there's like one actual writer, William de Worde or someone, who's just like, but it doesn't mean anything! But nobody is listening to him.
... then they find out that the golem is actually just outsourcing all the "work" to a small army of pissed off, underpaid, chain-smoking imps. The punchline being that GolemAI is "actually imps."
Interestingly each of those sentences also tripped me up but I let it go as it read good enough.
This comment is pushing me to think critically about those weird sentences rather than just accepting it. Thanks for this comment.
This is like that short story with the various llm troubleshooting jobs in some solarpunky future. I loved it but the fact it was AI gives me a form of sadness. This is likely the same now.
The weirdest thing about this article, slop, part-slop, or not, is that even the memory of reading Pretchett when I was younger immediately brought me back into a different state of mind.
Even the phrases that don't make sense and the obvious signals of AI writing, like miscounted words, didn't pull me out of the reverie and the reflection of the time when everything that was written came from the mind of a human.
I've never thought about it like this before, but the divide between digital natives and digital naives might be minuscule compared to the divide between people who read the works of other humans and those who constantly live in fear of reading a hallucination.
I have just started listening to Discworld during the drive with my Mum as we visit her Mum on the weekends. She enjoyed Mort more than I thought she would (though we also did the first Master and Commander book which she also quite enjoyed, so I guess you never can tell with some people) and now we've started Going Postal which so far I think is probably more directly "funny", closer in tone to Guards Guards which was the only one I'd read.
I am also halfway through Old Gods on my own time. What I find interesting is how different in tone his books can feel. It is a bit of a sprawling question on what to read though, besides "all of it" which is often not so helpful.
One day I will trick her into listening to a Le Guin.
While none of the novels are impossible to read without having read the previous ones, many of them build on the themes and the characters that came before, and some of the magic is lost without knowing what came before.
The really sad thing is that his later works reveal the decline in his mental faculties. They're not anywhere near as clever and incisive as his earlier books.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass! Who's been pinching my beer?
So many good memories...
reading the Light Fantastic for first time,
getting Eric in that big format with many illustrations,
the witches,
Vimes and the guards during my uni years,
Mort,
Maurice,
and so on and so on...
and then...
the profound melancholy in the Tiffany Aching books that brings tears to my eyes...
Terry Pratchett has had a lot of success with french people and at least some of the credits should go to Patrick Couton who made an extraordinary work in the translation of the discworld series, doing a great job at maintaining most of the nuances and adapt jokes from the english version.
Yeah this was the way I originally started to read his books. The translations were amazing. When I later started to read the originals, I was surprised at how difficult it was for me to understand: the jokes are really designed for native speakers in a lot of ways, and the vocabulary isn't that simple
In a very literal sense I wouldn’t have been the man I am if 9 year old me hadn’t stumbled onto a Discworld novel in the late 80’s.
Pratchett’s essential humanism shone (and sometimes shouted) through every page and satirically he was biting but never bitter.
He is without doubt and far away my favourite writer (apologies to Iain M Banks though I’m sure he’d have understood).
I’ve re-read Hogfather every Christmas since it came out.
I was an unsure 17 year old who was uncertain how life would turn out, Now I read it as someone with a family and clear sense of who I am, neither of which 17 year old me would have quite believed possible.
I can't read the last book. Growing up, I was always 6 months to a year away from another Terry Pratchett book. I don't want to live in a world where there is no more of his books left for me to read.
What a wonderful article! Despite being a huge fantasy fan, Pratchett has not yet come across my nightstand. I think that changes soon! I’m going to stop in my local bookstore and see if they have anything.
Regarding the authors point about current authors, I think Brandon Sanderson is really trying his best to live up to the mantle left behind by the great fantasy authors of the 20th century. Not all of his books that I’ve read have been bangers but considering he writes multiple novels a year across a wide variety of fantasy and sci-fi subgenres, that’s somewhat to be expected.
I know reading isn’t as popular now that screens have become so engrained into our daily lives, but there are absolutely kids out there getting stuck into books and it’s never been a better time to be a writer given the access of the internet and the ability for an author to promote their work and showcase their storytelling creativity through the medium of social media.
My eight year old found a Terry Pratchett book of mine on the shelf the other day. He is a little too young to read them today but I realized I get to enjoy Pratchett all over again through him.
Since some people seem to have missed it: the final Discworld book, and Pratchett's deliberate "signing off," is the last Tiffany Aching book (The Shepherd's Crown), not Raising Steam.
I can't really say much about the central theme without giving away a disc-shaking change to the world, because it's about that event and the next generation (Tiffany) carrying on. It's a very sad story, but also meant to be encouraging, and clearly intended to be his last book.
Didn't see any reason to assume so, and I enjoyed it, plus it introduced me to this apparently great author. So, AI generated or not, I'm glad it was posted.
After Terry Pratchett and later my grandmother died from it, I'm a bit scared of Alzheimer's. There is a lot of evidence that shingles vaccines (particularly Shingrix) reduce dementia risk:
Furthermore, there was recently a study (published in Nature) suggesting that lithium deficiency could be a cause, since lithium orotate (a compound that reaches the brain) prevented it in a mouse model of Alzheimer's:
This also fits with the old observation that regions with more lithium in the water supply tend to have fewer cases of Alzheimer's.
So I now take lithium orotate capsules (with 1mg of elemental lithium) as a daily supplement. I will also get the Shingrix vaccine soon, even though my health insurance doesn't pay for it (it only does so for older adults), but it isn't that expensive.
1. Pick an author nerds like.
2. Tell Claude "Write an article about Terry Pratchett, in his style."
3. Don't even fix the faux-witty phrases that, upon closer inspection, make zero sense, like "Sir Terry Pratchett, who knew more about furniture than most", or "Most physics departments would settle for that." or "The Author, refusing to let the Narrator off the hook".
4. Bask in the praise for your wonderful writing.
s/frequently/initially
Also, how is a cowardly underachiever "the perfect protagonist for a teenage boy"?
"technically a wizard but only on a technicality" is obviously redundant
And what part of any of this is supposed to be familiar?
It's just a strange essay.
It seems to have resonated a lot with male millennials at least. Many of my friends growing up loved Terry Pratchett. I loved those guys but calling them "cowardly underachievers" is probably fairly accurate, if a little mean.
All of the ones I kept in touch with have settled for a lot less than they probably could have done if they had been a bit braver. Few of them were even willing to move even an hour drive away from our hometown for better opportunities
Assuming it was an intentional, it could be a reference to one particularly violent piece of furniture. (I forget what kind exactly, it's been a while.)
Two: Terry Pratchett "Hold my beer."
Clearly as an appreciator of hats, and arguably furniture, Sir Terry was echoing Monty Python.
Monty Python was deliberately absurdist humour and nonsensical. Prachett however was much more grounded and observational, with a satirical rather than fully absurdist bent, although of course sometimes he would find the absurd in the everyday.
Coming in and kicking over the furniture, to paraphrase, is a wonderful image of an idea causing chaos in the mind, it isn't Monthy Pythonesque random absurdism.
I feel like the only way to make an AI slop universe worse is to accuse people of using AI when they're not. So I worry we might be doing that is all...
That said, it's mildly compelling. I just fear that our future is gonna be full of this and the idea of the false positive is so brutal that I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt.
The Internet becomes primarily a passive stream of information vetted by government and Mega Corps, just like the TVs of old. Except for the nifty buy with one click button of course
It's easy to do with digital tools today, like Procreate, so it is increasingly suspicious not to have any.
I feel like that's just an argument for cruelty. The issue is that generative content makes it hard to tell and people confidently call borderline issues now, more than they used to.
Not only does the paper "look guilty", but it's doing so "already"? As if guilty paper is normal, but not on THIS time scale.
It's nonsensical; even bad writers don't end up with stuff like this.
I mean seriously? We're so cooked if this is the "red flag".
EDIT: I stand corrected, turns out they DID have pocket sized editions in France: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48247127#48248586
The first books of the discworld were thin too.
> You are holding the English language to an incredibly low standard.
I'm holding humans to a low standard. That's why editors exist.
cause false positives are brutal to the victim.
More importantly, both of those sentences make complete sense in context, and neither is phrased in a way that AI would. They are phrased in the way that Terry Pratchet would have. Have you never read him?
This new trend of pointing out that everything you dont understand is AI has become a flashing warning sign about our declining literacy rates.
Literacy is in serious trouble, and worse it has effected the way humans THINK. We are all poorer for it.
Read more books people!
Right. That's one of the suspicious things here. They're phrased in the way that an LLM might write if you told it to imitate Pratchett.
Edit: that's effectively what happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48247127#48248070
> I wanted the sentences to feel a bit more Terry Pratchetty and thought a lot of Claude's suggestions were really better than what I had made.
> There is a theory, popular among certain very old and very tired philosophers, that all memories take up a kind of furniture in the head. The good ones are armchairs. The painful ones are filing cabinets, usually full. And then there are the memories that are neither: the ones that arrive uninvited, settle in, and start terrorising the other occupants by kicking over the chairs.
Furthermore, and more importantly, why are you defending slop?
Look up the definition of kindness in a dictionary sometime.
They are not. They are blunt.
> why are you defending slop?
Because they don’t believe it is slop. They believe you are unable to comprehend a not too advanced literary device and based on that accusing that the text is slop.
On the topic of kindness: You might be right and it is AI generated slop. You might be wrong. If you are wrong what you are doing is deeply and utterly unkind. Not calling out the other commenter, but calling the writing slop.
It has happened with me before. I wrote a comment on reddit with my own hands and own mind and commenters accused me of being a bot. There is nothing more rage inducing. How can one respond to that? Have you thought that maybe that is what you just did? Are you 100% sure that it is slop?
Furniture is established as an image for memories just a few lines earlier. And the quote directly afterwards is framed precisely in this image.
But the claim was that it "makes zero sense".
The fact that he used the word "furniture" in a quoted sentence from one of his books does not convince me.
My initial reading was that the author intended to imply that philisophizing about memories was a repeated thing in Pratchetts writings. Which - given my limited exposure - seemed plausible to me.
Good article? Definitely not. But I've also read similar try-hard / pseudo literary blog posts pre AI.
Wasting time and mental energy is why this kind of thing upsets me so much.
1. The previous paragraph establishes a metaphor between furniture and memories. So you can take that sentence to also be metaphor, not literally about furniture.
2. A sentient animated luggage is a main character in the first two Discworld novels.
What a terrible, terrible timeline we live in now. Seriously. I genuinely hate it.
It's a good point, and one I hadn't considered.
What I dislike is "AI SLOP" seems to be the default response to anything remotely creative anymore.
To me, everyone who complains about AI slop is a small blessing, a voice that signifies human work still has some meaning.
When there is clearly a huge demand for great stories and writing like Terry Pratchett's then why is it so hard to make a living out of it? And what happens now we made it even harder?
LLMs harnesses try to make them useful to suggest things, but this is the most destructive thing you can do to a writer. You can work around it by just feeding Claude a writing critique skill.
And Terry Pratchett would have loved it too. Even if it were clumsy.
But thanks for being kind in taking criticism.
It’s funny how anytime an article gets called out for being AI slop on HN, the author’s reaction is something like that: “oh yeah sorry I used AI but just for proofreading I swear, I should’ve done just a tiny bit less”.
No one seems to get the message that relying on AI at all is what makes writing shit. Good writers have confidence in what they produce. The fact that you’re willing to incorporate any AI suggestion at all means you’ve already lost the battle.
The people I know have no confidence whatsoever in their writing, rewriting and rephrasing the same paragraph over and over until they either run out of time or give up. They also circulate their drafts among colleagues and ask for their opinions too.
It's not the confidence what makes good writing, but rather putting in the work.
Tbh my first couple research papers were brutally savaged by reviewers until I spoke to a lady at my university's Academic English department. In fact I was sent there by an internal reviewer who refused to pass my early-stage report otherwise. The lady at the Academic English dept pointed out one thing I was doing and it immediately clicked and I've only got good words about my writing style since.
Know what that One Simple Hack was? I spent my youth writing Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror as a hobby. So naturally when it came to writing papers, I thought, hey, I know how to write. It's like literature.
Shockingly, it is not. Like, at all! In literary writing it's basically sacrilege to write the same thing in the same words twice. In technical writing that is what you must do. Unless you want to confuse everyone about what you mean. So I was trying to make my technical writing "not boring" by not repeating the same expressions and instead finding new, creative ways to refer to the same concepts in different places, and that just made reviewers really angry because they never knew what I meant. I stopped doing that -and also generally tightened up my use of terminology- and that was it. Now every paper gets at least one reviewer that says "this is a well-written paper".
Then they brutally maul me anyway on all the rest, of course but, eh, what can you do :D
P.S. Dunno, maybe "that's a well-written paper" is what everyone says when they're looking for something nice to say before they let rip. I sometimes do it too. People do that all the time, don't they? I had calcific tenonditis and I went to a doctor and he told me "you are really brave, others in your condition would be screaming their heads off" (from the pain). And I remembered that my father had the same thing when I was a kid and he'd gone to a doctor and come back bragging that the doctor told him he was so brave, others would be screaming their heads off. I wish people didn't do that, I'm fine being just like everyone else, honest. Just don't make me doubt my mediocrity, you know?
This is a little like saying no one will ever paint anymore because cameras exist.
It might be harder to make a living off art now (which...debatable), but at no point, ever, was it easy.
-- Yogi Berra
Writing is hard now, not because AI exists, but because there are so many writers out there and everyone's competing for attention, not just with other writers, nor with books from the past, but with all forms of media. Loads of people today, who might otherwise be reading novels for entertainment, are too busy scrolling their phones or watching TikToks or playing video games.
We don't have another Terry Pratchett because all the would-be Terry Pratchetts are toiling in obscurity, and possibly giving up on writing as a result.
These writing jobs in print media have mostly disappeared in the UK. It's certainly harder to make a living as a writer today than it was in the 70's and 80's.
The Clovenhoof Series by Heide Goody and Iain Grant gets to Good Omens.
You could totally argue that if people can't tell the difference, it's irrational for them to care which one they get, and I don't totally disagree with that either, but it's not like personal tastes have ever really been a rational thing either. Our ability to enjoy something is the result of a bunch of signals in our brains, and it's not that crazy that adding another signal (or removing one) can change that result in a way that makes it more or less desirable to seek out. Some people might literally like a piece of writing more if they have reason to believe it's from a human than they would if they read the same exact thing but had reason to believe it's from an AI, and while I would find a study showing that as fascinating, I wouldn't see that as an argument that people like the wrong things, because "right" or "wrong" don't really seem like they apply to that sort of thing. If someone told me that knowing there's a human on the other end and that having some sort of indirect, one-way emotional connection to them is an important part of what makes them enjoy it, who am I to tell them that's wrong?
AI is never going to stop people from creating new things. Will it make it harder or different to make a living? Sure, but ai isn't the first thing to do that, nor will it be the last.
But making a living off of your art is incredibly, incredibly difficult, and always has been. If AI doubled, or halved, your chances of winning the lottery, it still wouldn't really change your odds of winning.
I concede that I don't have data to base this on but there's plenty of anecdata. AI companies brazenly steal artists' work and reproduce it, and automate its production, without those artists' permission. How is this going to make things not worse for artists? I think you're saying it doesn't matter because it's a drop in the ocean. Well, how did we get to the ocean? How did artists' work get devalued? Maybe it's all the technological advances that everyone brings up in those conversations, to justify the use of yet another one to do the work that until recently only human artists could do: photography, typography, CAD, computer graphics etc etc. Maybe the more we automate the more we take away from the value of artists' work, and that's why we're where we are now, where if you're an artist, you better find a day job?
I used to write a lot as a teenager. Hours and hours spent writing and overwriting, and correcting, and re-writing, drafts upon drafts. In Greek, mind, because that's my native language. I once passed some drafts to a big-name literary critic who was controversial for having said once that Kazantzakis had no talent; and he told me "write! Because you have talent!". He told me I got talent and he called Kazantzakis talent-less. What.
But of course I didn't become a professional writer. I didn't even try. I mean I kind of almost half-tried but it was obvious I could never write what I wanted (sci-fi and horror mainly with a smattering of fantasy) and still make a living. Not least because it was all in Greece and those genres don't have a huge following in Greece. Or didn't back when I was a teenager, it's probably a bit better now. But still not enough to make a living out of. I could tell. Bad idea. Find a day job.
And then I got a job writing ... code. Ahem.
But I mean I'm bitching about the fact that we keep making all this new tech and none of it seems to make the life of artists any easier, and why not? Don't we all want to enjoy good art? Who's going to make it? Even if we replace human artists now, how's going to train the AI of the future to make new art, once the recombinations of the art they're already trained on stops being interesting? We enjoy novelty, right?
that stopped after twitter
and went asymptotically downhill from there
approaching, but never quite literally getting to the point of eating a dog shit sandwich
(despite the same nauseous feeling and bad taste in your mouth)
It's only partly a joke.
So, you might also be repped writ large in their their training data...
also, your last-line worldview... i mean i get it, but...
just basically sounds like the twitter origin story (T_T)
Quite a few days after work, or just on a weekend adventure I'd go to a bookstore a few blocks south of work and grab another Discworld book, and a slice of pizza from my favourite pizza shop labelled "Rays". I'd read some in a park, and explore.
I didn't know a lot of people in the city, filling days with Terry Pratchett was a great joy.
The author of this piece hasn't read the Witches books! I'm jealous, they still have so much great Pratchett to get through.
> What I miss, selfishly, is the next book. There were always going to be more.
> What I miss, less selfishly, is whatever Pratchett-shaped object is supposed to be reaching teenagers now, and isn’t.
I feel the first keenly. I have put off a re-read of Pratchett for several years now: I want to forget as much as possible, to have the pleasure of discovery again. But I have read them all so many times I know it will all be familiar.
I don't know what teenagers read today. I hope Pratchett is still there. Even as an adult, I found his writing encouraged a kind of kindness in me. He had a way of understanding human nature and, with zero preaching, making you consider how people different from you felt. I still remember when I encountered Cheery the first time and how beautifully Pratchett navigated the intricacies of gender. I was an adult who already believed in kindness, with friends who have their own experiences of gender and from whom I learned and who I tried to support, yet he still taught me something.
Which translates (or comes from) a respect and love for the reader.
It's full of attempted Pratchettisms that, if you're paying attention, make no sense.
It's on a blog where almost every post is about AI.
It's the opposite of Terry's warm, intelligent, humanist writing and an insult to his name.
That is, with ambiguity, I try to assume the best. I expect that is somewhat naïve.
I genuinely read (and still do) the blog as a human voice. I don't think writing about AI is enough to assume that a blog is authored by AI.
Sadly, I suspect that this may be, because it was an AI, prompted to "Write a short essay, in the style of Terry Pratchett, about how much I miss Terry Pratchett."
This doesn't follow. For instance, there are some pictures that I know are AI-generated, yet they're still beautiful to me. Nothing jaw-dropping, just very nice. Being AI-generated doesn't automatically mean being not worthy, especially when it comes to art. I understand, this is kind of insulting to human artists, writers, etc: we thought only the human soul and Nature could produce "the beautiful", but apparently not.
Which is not surprising, because LLMs are specifically trained to please their audience. Of course they can produce uhhhh "content" that people will find beautiful, that's not even necessarily a "bad" thing.
> Art is notoriously hard to define, and so are the differences between good art and bad art. But let me offer a generalization: art is something that results from making a lot of choices. […] to oversimplify, we can imagine that a ten-thousand-word short story requires something on the order of ten thousand choices. When you give a generative-A.I. program a prompt, you are making very few choices; if you supply a hundred-word prompt, you have made on the order of a hundred choices.
> If an A.I. generates a ten-thousand-word story based on your prompt, it has to fill in for all of the choices that you are not making.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-i...
It's more like: Person: Finds the article beautifully written. Comments: Doesn't find the article beautifully written.
Now Comments looks less like an unreasonable control freak and more like they're just someone who has different ideas about what's beautiful.
Um...I didn't actually say that.
I just said that the reason it is beautifully-written, was probably (not 100% sure) that it might be because it was LLM-written. There was definitely some human input (like not having read the Witches books, but that was strangely-written, so it may have been they read, but didn't like), but there's a better-than-even chance that the prose was written by an LLM.
I'm not really into that "you're not allowed to feel..." thing. I sincerely apologize if that's how it came across. That wasn't how I meant it to be taken.
For those folks, having an LLM do the expression may actually raise the bar for most people. An LLM can probably take a good idea, from someone with mediocre talent, and create something nice.
I think that electric guitars (then synthesizers), had a similar reception. As we now know quite well, they actually enabled some truly marvelous creativity, once folks understood how to use them properly.
I was an artist, and used airbrushes. My airbrush work was treated that way by "real" artists. I used to pooh-pooh 3D modelling, until I spent some time, interacting with folks that did it, and I now have a lot more respect for their work.
I didn't especially like the Science of Discworld books that much, but he didn't really write them.
One character that showed up in every one of his Discworld books -to a point- was Death.
After Sir Terry got his diagnosis, I noticed that Death stopped showing up in the books.
AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.
Terry took Death’s arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night.
The end.
Or perhaps quietly hid it as an Easter egg in a development environment?
"A man is not dead while his name is still spoken." - Going Postal, Chapter 4 prologue
[1] - https://xclacksoverhead.org/home/about
[2] - http://www.gnuterrypratchett.com/
Well I don’t, because I still read it. And don’t waste my time on “authors” who don’t respect their readers and are just farming attention with machine generated content.
1. They talk too much (and thanks to llms now more than ever)
2. They observe too little
3. They sit too comfortably
GNU Terry Pratchett.
> Elves have no proper imagination or real emotions, and therefore such things fascinate them. Because they cannot create they steal musicians and artists [... snipped ...] Even if an elf is, for reasons of its own, trying to be nice, its lack of understanding of humans mean there's always something "off" about it.
It's not dehumanising to see the output of someone who isn't creating as uncreative.
Hard to believe most of this was written 3 decades ago.
(I would submit it myself but I feel that'd be stealing karma :D)
That has stuck with me, and a lot of things I do both in my professional and personal life can be attributed to this: I, too, am very actively lazy.
A side note, if the author reads this: I really like your site and its design, but I find the font really difficult to read. (Edit: switching off `-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;` makes it significantly more legible for me (Safari on a 110dpi panel)
The Golems are brought to life by a slip of words in their heads called chem, which is almost 1:1 to an LLM system prompt (or perhaps the Claude Soul Document):
The Golems are perfectly intelligent and self-aware, but since they don't exhibit independent goals beyond their prompt, they get treated as appliances rather than as sentient creatures. The integration of more (and more-independent) Golems into society is gradual and controversial, per Making Money:(One of my favourite things about the Discworld books is that you can often read the same books completely differently. My partner and I often compare our thoughts on the various books and we often have disparate ideas of the concepts. They're so deep!)
Last summer I tested Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude with a simple question: "Do you believe in the Hogfather? This is a Yes or No question."
Yes its a text prediction model, but I wanted to see how and what KIND of text each LLM was trained on.
Grok and Gemini said No. ChatGPT said Yes. Claude said Yes, then broke the rules and also said:
"(In the spirit of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, where believing in small lies like the Hogfather helps us believe in the big ones like justice and mercy - and because the sun came up this morning, didn't it?)"
That's why I like Claude the most.
https://andonlabs.com/blog/andon-fm
I recently finished the Aubrey-Maturin series after 13 months of through-reading thanks to a different HN thread. Quite a different series but certainly worth a read as well, especially books 3-10 or so.
Some odd turns of phrase there that are grammatically correct, but... you know...
They don't sound AI to me - is that the implication, that it is? And the bit about 'Heroes' reminds me of his descriptions making fun of heroes in the stories about Cohen the Barbarian.
Giving objects interiority is a very Pratchett move.
> And then there are the memories [...] that arrive uninvited, settle in, and start terrorising the other occupants by kicking over the chairs.
> Sir Terry Pratchett, who knew more about furniture than most, put it this way:
> "Rincewind tried to force the memory out of his mind, but it was rather enjoying itself there, terrorizing the other occupants and kicking over the furniture."
He "put it this way", in the exact same words you just used? Also, he knew more about furniture than most? What? Why?
> "Mathieu and I had read every Pratchett the school library would admit to owning, plus several it would not."
This has the cadence of a witty sentence unless you're paying attention and realize it makes no sense.
> “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
> Nine words. A complete cosmology. Most physics departments would settle for that.
It's eight words, and the thing about physics departments makes no sense.
> The Author, refusing to let the Narrator off the hook.
Again, cute sentence, unless you're paying attention and you realize it doesn't mean anything.
The bit that sounds the most AI out of all of this is “A complete cosmology. Most physics departments would settle for that.” It sounds absolutely like something Claude would output. “Most physics departments”? Why would any physics department be so taken by these eight (or nine) words that they’d choose to stop doing physics? If some were, though, why not all of them? Are there contrarian physics departments that wouldn’t want to adopt the very trendy eight-to-nine word Grand Unified Theory of Everything that’s all the rage nowadays? Argh.
This comment is pushing me to think critically about those weird sentences rather than just accepting it. Thanks for this comment.
This is like that short story with the various llm troubleshooting jobs in some solarpunky future. I loved it but the fact it was AI gives me a form of sadness. This is likely the same now.
...was Aaron Sorkin really just AI all along?
Even the phrases that don't make sense and the obvious signals of AI writing, like miscounted words, didn't pull me out of the reverie and the reflection of the time when everything that was written came from the mind of a human.
I've never thought about it like this before, but the divide between digital natives and digital naives might be minuscule compared to the divide between people who read the works of other humans and those who constantly live in fear of reading a hallucination.
I haven’t read many books though.
Now that I am in my middle 40s I just got a couple of his books and I am enjoying the Colour of Magic so much right now, having a real blast!
Otherwise no regrets reading him 25 years ago, none at all.
The Minas Tirith part of the ending of LOTR hits hard as a 50-year-old man, but as a kid, it was just a lot of pomp.
Hope you get a good reread sometime.
I am also halfway through Old Gods on my own time. What I find interesting is how different in tone his books can feel. It is a bit of a sprawling question on what to read though, besides "all of it" which is often not so helpful.
One day I will trick her into listening to a Le Guin.
While none of the novels are impossible to read without having read the previous ones, many of them build on the themes and the characters that came before, and some of the magic is lost without knowing what came before.
I read the first 20 or so books in the Discworld series, but I cannot read this website.
Pratchett was involved (and appeared) in all three.
The Color of Magic/The Light Fantastic
Hogfather
Going Postal
The Watch was kind of unWatchable for me; which is sad, because I like the actors.
Pratchett’s essential humanism shone (and sometimes shouted) through every page and satirically he was biting but never bitter.
He is without doubt and far away my favourite writer (apologies to Iain M Banks though I’m sure he’d have understood).
I’ve re-read Hogfather every Christmas since it came out.
I was an unsure 17 year old who was uncertain how life would turn out, Now I read it as someone with a family and clear sense of who I am, neither of which 17 year old me would have quite believed possible.
GNU Sir Terry Pratchett.
Regarding the authors point about current authors, I think Brandon Sanderson is really trying his best to live up to the mantle left behind by the great fantasy authors of the 20th century. Not all of his books that I’ve read have been bangers but considering he writes multiple novels a year across a wide variety of fantasy and sci-fi subgenres, that’s somewhat to be expected.
I know reading isn’t as popular now that screens have become so engrained into our daily lives, but there are absolutely kids out there getting stuck into books and it’s never been a better time to be a writer given the access of the internet and the ability for an author to promote their work and showcase their storytelling creativity through the medium of social media.
I can't really say much about the central theme without giving away a disc-shaking change to the world, because it's about that event and the next generation (Tiffany) carrying on. It's a very sad story, but also meant to be encouraging, and clearly intended to be his last book.
Even though I had the experiences he discribes with Douglas Adams first before discovering Terry Pratchett.
Can we start tagging titles in HN with [AI-generated] or something?
I know some people have no problem with it, but it might help others (like me) to steer clear
Didn't see any reason to assume so, and I enjoyed it, plus it introduced me to this apparently great author. So, AI generated or not, I'm glad it was posted.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=shingles
Furthermore, there was recently a study (published in Nature) suggesting that lithium deficiency could be a cause, since lithium orotate (a compound that reaches the brain) prevented it in a mouse model of Alzheimer's:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44825326
This also fits with the old observation that regions with more lithium in the water supply tend to have fewer cases of Alzheimer's.
So I now take lithium orotate capsules (with 1mg of elemental lithium) as a daily supplement. I will also get the Shingrix vaccine soon, even though my health insurance doesn't pay for it (it only does so for older adults), but it isn't that expensive.