This time around, with better control over its style, Claudeasey's prose felt more Platformer-like and human, and the AI bullshitted me less and offered stronger takes.

My previous AI journalist agents’ takes often read formulaic and cheesy — partially because I had less control over its writing style. (Giving too much instruction or context confused it.) During the “SaaSpocalypse” discourse, an agent I was testing wrote duds like “the fear gripping Wall Street is fundamentally about whether AI is about to eat the software industry alive.”)  This time, on the other hand, some of its prose felt more Platformer-like and… human, such as this conclusion about the White House’s decision not to make publicly available its new “voluntary” framework for releasing frontier AI models: “When the administration abandoned its let's-see-what-happens approach to AI this spring, I wrote that while officials should have taken the risks seriously all along, I would settle for them taking those risks seriously now. Three months later, let me amend the offer: they should take the risks seriously where the rest of us can see it.” While it’s not a night-and-day difference, overall I felt like the AI was bullshitting me less, and offering stronger takes. (The LLM made occasional factual errors — about one every two columns — although that’s not so much worse than a human writer.)

Read full article ↗excerpt · fair-use quotation