I do a lot of writing at my job, and find myself using AI more and more for drafting. I find it especially helpful when I am stuck.

Like any human assigned with a writing task, Claude cannot magically guess what you want. I find that when I see other people get lackluster writing results with AI, it's very often due to providing almost no context for the AI to work with.

When asking for help with a draft, I will often write out a few paragraphs of thoughts on the draft. For example, if I were brainstorming ideas for a title, I might write out a prompt like:
 

"I am looking to create a title for the following document: <document>. 

My current best attempt at a title is: 'Why LLMs need context to do good work'

I think this title does a good job at explaining the core message, namely that LLMs cannot guess what you want if you don't provide sufficient context, but it does a poor job at communicating <some other thing I care about communicating>.

Please help brainstorm ten other titles, from which we can ideate."

Perhaps Claude comes up with two good titles, or one title has a word I particularly like. Then I might follow up saying:

"I like this word, it captures <some concept>  very well. Can we ideate a few more ideas using this word?"

From this process, I will usually get out something good, which I wouldn't have been able to think of myself. Usually I'll take those sentences, work them into my draft, and continue.

Really incredible job, really exciting to see so many great projects come out of Catalyze. Hopefully people will consider funding not just the projects, but also consider the new incubator which created them!

On a side note, I am especially excited about TamperSec and see their work as the most important technical contribution that can be made to AI governance currently.

Don't put all of your savings into shady cryptocurrencies. If it sounds good to be true, it is because it probably is.

that when I wrote the comment, the post was at -4 upvotes!

Why on earth are people downvoting this post?

Figuring out how to respond to the USAID freeze (and then doing it) is probably the most important question in global health and development right now. That there has been virtually no discussion on the forum so far has frankly been quite shocking to me.

Have a fat upvote, wishing you the best of luck

More dakka is to pour more firepower onto a problem. Two examples:

Example: "bright lights don't help my seasonal depression". More dakka: "have you tried even brighter lights?"

Example: we brainstormed ten ideas, none of them seem good. More dakka: "Try listing a 100 ideas"

Thank you for pursuing this line of argument, I think the question of legal rights for AI is a really important one. One thought i've had reading your previous posts about this, is whether it legal rights will matter not only for securing the welfare of AI but also for safeguarding humanity.

I haven't really thought this fully through, but here's my line of thinking:

As we are currently on track to create superintelligence and I don't think we can say anything with much confidence about whether the AI we create will value the same things as us, it might be important to set up mechanisms which make peaceful collaboration with humanity the most attractive option for superintelligent AI(s) to get what they want.

If your best bet for getting what you want involves eliminating all humans, you are a lot more likely to eliminate all humans!

I have pushed the idea on the CE research team to the point I’m sure they’re sick of hearing me rant about it!

To my knowledge it’s on their list of ideas to research for their next round of animal welfare charities

Merry Christmas and happy holidays :)

I haven't looked into this at all, but the effect of eradication efforts (whether through gene drive or the traditional sterile insect technique) is that screwworm stop reproducing and cease to exist, not that they die anguishing deaths.