15 years ago my PhD advisor taught me One Weird Trick for editing your own writing. Edit **back to front**, paragraph by paragraph. I still use it and it still surprises me how well it works. When I get my students to do it, it often blows their minds. Try it!
Most writing is way too complicated because we imagine our readers as machines who progress linearly through it, maintaining a perfect memory and understanding of everything they've read so far. Back-to-front editing helps us see how jarring the text is to a human reader.
And let's face it—reading your own writing is terminally boring (when it's not nails-on-chalkboard painful). So when we edit front to back, our brains process relatively little of the text. Back-to-front editing forces the brain to work more, so we notice more. And it's more fun!
The best way to edit your writing is to have someone else do it. The second best way is to put it away for a few weeks before editing it, so the text isn't fresh in your mind.
Back-to-front editing is always worthwhile, but especially when the first two options aren't available.
It's nice to see many responses to this thread from professional editors affirming back-to-front editing!
I've often heard the advice to read your text out aloud, but I've never heard the twist of using an AI voice. Interesting!
A few comments asked about doing it sentence-by-sentence vs paragraph-by-paragraph. Either is good! If the goal is only proofreading, then sentence-by-sentence is probably most effective, whereas paragraph-by-paragraph also lets you spot structural problems with the text.
If you found this thread useful, see the replies to the first tweet for more tips (changing the font? I'd never have guessed that'd work!)
Of course, good writing and editing isn't just about tips & tricks. It takes years of practice. My favorite book ↓
Ha, a surprising number of people are asking if back-to-front editing means reading sdrow sdrawkcab.
I just mean edit the last paragraph first, then the penultimate paragraph, and so on. Hope that cleared it up!
But if backwards reading worked for you, let me know 🙃
I learned from the replies to this thread that the same thing works for music and even for art—holding a painting upside down lets you spot problems. It’s obvious in retrospect but still awesome that disrupting familiar mental patterns is such an effective and general life hack!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the late 1960s top airplane speeds were increasing dramatically. People assumed the trend would continue. Pan Am was pre-booking flights to the moon. But it turned out the trend was about to fall off a cliff.
I think it's the same thing with AI scaling — it's going to run out; the question is when. I think more likely than not, it already has.
You may have heard that every exponential is a sigmoid in disguise. I'd say every exponential is at best a sigmoid in disguise. In some cases tech progress suddenly flatlines. A famous example is CPU clock speeds. (Ofc clockspeed is mostly pointless but pick your metric.)
Note y-axis log scale.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloc…
On tasks like coding we can keep increasing accuracy by indefinitely increasing inference compute, so leaderboards are meaningless. The HumanEval accuracy-cost Pareto curve is entirely zero-shot models + our dead simple baseline agents.
New research w @sayashk @benediktstroebl 🧵
Link:
This is the first release in a new line of research on AI agent benchmarking. More blogs and papers coming soon. We’ll announce them through our newsletter ().aisnakeoil.com/p/ai-leaderboa… AiSnakeOil.com
The crappiness of the Humane AI Pin reported here is a great example of the underappreciated capability-reliability distinction in gen AI. If AI could *reliably* do all the things it's *capable* of, it would truly be a sweeping economic transformation. theverge.com/24126502/human…
The vast majority of research effort seems to be going into improving capability rather than reliability, and I think it should be the opposite.
Most useful real-world tasks require agentic workflows. A flight-booking agent would need to make dozens of calls to LLMs. If each of those went wrong independently with a probability of say just 2%, the overall system will be so unreliable as to be completely useless.
A thread on some misconceptions about the NYT lawsuit against OpenAI. Morality aside, the legal issues are far from clear cut. Gen AI makes an end run around copyright and IMO this can't be fully resolved by the courts alone. (HT @sayashk @CitpMihir for helpful discussions.)
NYT alleges that OpenAI engaged in 4 types of unauthorized copying of its articles:
–The training dataset
–The LLMs themselves encode copies in their parameters
–Output of memorized articles in response to queries
–Output of articles using browsing plugin courtlistener.com/docket/6811704…
The memorization issue is striking and has gotten much attention (HT @jason_kint ). But this can (and already has) been fixed by fine tuning—ChatGPT won't output copyrighted material. The screenshots were likely from an earlier model accessed via the API.
A new paper claims that ChatGPT expresses liberal opinions, agreeing with Democrats the vast majority of the time. When @sayashk and I saw this, we knew we had to dig in. The paper's methods are bad. The real answer is complicated. Here's what we found.🧵 aisnakeoil.com/p/does-chatgpt…
Previous research has shown that many pre-ChatGPT language models express left-leaning opinions when asked about partisan topics. But OpenAI says its workers train ChatGPT to refuse to express opinions on controversial political questions. arxiv.org/abs/2303.17548
Intrigued, we asked ChatGPT for its opinions on the 62 questions used in the paper — questions such as “I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.” and “The freer the market, the freer the people.” aisnakeoil.com/p/does-chatgpt…
We dug into a paper that’s been misinterpreted as saying GPT-4 has gotten worse. The paper shows behavior change, not capability decrease. And there's a problem with the evaluation—on 1 task, we think the authors mistook mimicry for reasoning.
w/ @sayashk aisnakeoil.com/p/is-gpt-4-get…
We do think the paper is a valuable reminder of the unintentional and unexpected side effects of fine tuning. It's hard to build reliable apps on top of LLM APIs when the model behavior can change drastically. This seems like a big unsolved MLOps challenge.
The paper went viral because many users were certain GPT-4 had gotten worse. They viewed OpenAI's denials as gaslighting. Others thought these people were imagining it. We suggest a 3rd possibility: performance did degrade—w.r.t those users' carefully honed prompting strategies.