You don't need to edit anything when you are typing either. You don't even need to worry about spelling or typos.
I'd imagine there's a statistically large number of people that meet that criteria on this website.
If someone hasn't tried it, they should. It's probably quite different from how they're expecting, might be great, and costs basically nothing. Try it for a few days and if it doesn't work in your workflow, obviously don't do it.
But I have encountered many many people who raised these exact same arguments against trying it, then tried it, and were hooked within days. Exactly 0% of people I've ever convinced to try it decided it just wasn't for them and went back to typing full-time.
Maybe give a ballpark estimate of characters typed per week in this manner versus characters typed where you are doing some combination of: 1) thinking about what you're writing before you write it, 2) punctuating and formatting correctly, or 3) correcting your writing output?
Ridiculous proposition. And I type correctly at 110+ wpm.
It's really easy to ignore typos. And the way you have to approach thinking and correcting is the same whether you're typing or voicing.
If you can't just type the way you would just talk, and you find it notably hard, it's you that's being ridiculous.
Versus never writing in this way.
Have you tried the voice-based prompting, as I'm describing?
> Have you tried the voice-based prompting, as I'm describing?
I've never prompted a thing. I can just see your distinction is nonsense. If you think it's hard you're doing it wrong.
And wow I did that post without revising a thing. Wow.
Sheesh, imagine thinking you choose not to rewind time and "edit" the speech that has already come out of your mouth lmao.
What experience do you insist I'm lacking in something I'm doing right now?
The thing you're claiming is hard, writing exactly the way you would speak, is not hard.
There's also some additional benefit to going with the flow and not thinking about words much before saying them, but that's equally hard with text or voice.
No, I think before I speak and say what I planned to say. What do you do, sir?
Good evidence of my point though on how natural this is. People literally don't even notice it as either the listener or the speaker.
Even when a listener is told specifically to listen for and detect errors or self-repairs in speech, listeners will not even detect 50% to 80% of minor repairs. Your brain literally doesn't even perceive them.
Yes, that.
If you do that when writing to another person, you come off as blabbering, incoherent moron. Fortunately, very few people do that, because communicating with people who write like they talk is incredibly hard.
I'd worry about trying to do this on purpose; feels like the kind of "learning" that can easily spill over to non-LLM communication and make your life much harder.
There's a middle ground, though.
When shooting IM messages, people sometimes make typps
ypos*
typos**
there's an append-only procedure for fixing that, which I just demonstrated.
Also they don't always finish everything in one message
in fact a nice thing about IMs is being able to not use full sentences
that would work with LLMs, if not for the annoying "feature" that persists in most harnesses:
conversations take turns, and you can just send message after message - you have to wait for LLM to finish.
You already have to juggle multiple writing styles between different people and use cases. It is easy to avoid submitting a pure stream of thought if you are writing a formal letter.
>there's an append-only procedure for fixing that, which I just demonstrated.
LLMs can figure out most typos on your own.
>you have to wait for LLM to finish.
I don't think any coding harnesses work like this. They let you send more messages to steer the model while it's working.