Paul Graham is a good writer. He's not an elite-tier writer's writer like "the dead guy" who's not actually dead, but he's still better than 99% of business executives, and he's better in the skills that businessmen want.
Paul’s style of removing all friction might help the concepts slide smoothly into one’s brain, but as antirez points out, they’re less likely to stick.
That's fine. The ideas transmit, the words are forgotten. He doesn't need to use memorable sentences if he's saying what he's trying to say.
Paul Graham is a very skilled communicator. He's not a writer's writer like YKW, but he doesn't need to be.
Idk, I'm conflicted here because PG is the embodiment of a poor amateur writer with good ideas.
He is literally the proof that writing can be bad (albeit we should define what good and bad writing are and agree on it) but still interesting because of the ideas.
I write for living (albeit in Czech) and I don't think that PGs writing is bad. It is not artistically brilliant (unlike Douglas Adams'), but he gets his points clearly across, and uses a language that even foreigners with limited command of English can parse.
That's good in my opinion - in the same sense that hammer which drives down nails flawlessly is good. PG is not trying to write colorful fiction, he wants to communicate something, and he succeeds in doing so. It is still a hammer, not a statue of David, but there are good and bad hammers, and this is a good hammer. You wouldn't want to drive nails into boards with a statue of David anyway.
I don't share that fully, and I've read every single one of his essays, his arid style gets tough after few paragraphs, it's too dense and harsh, sentences are consistently very short so it feels like reading a machine gun.
Paul Graham is a very good writer, but one of the things I admire most about him is that, when he happens upon a truly excellent writer, he doesn't show the jealousy for which writers are infamously known. There has never been a case of a truly excellent writer being penalized, harassed, and eventually banned here.
What's worse is that it can sometimes (but not always) read through your anti-bias prompts.
"No, I want your honest opinion." "It's awesome."
"I'm going to invest $250,000 into this. Tell me what you really think." "You should do it."
(New Session)
"Someone pitched to me the idea that..." "Reject it."
AIs are inferior to humans at their best, but superior to humans as they actually behave in society, due to decision fatigue and other constraints. When it comes to moral judgment in high stakes scenarios, AIs still fail (or can be made to fail) in ways that are not socially acceptable.
Compare an AI to a real-world, overworked corporate decision maker, though, and you'll find that the AI is kinder and less biased. It still sucks, because GI/GO, but it's slightly better, simply because it doesn't suffer emotional fatigue, doesn't take as many shortcuts, and isn't clouded by personal opinions since it's not a person.
I found an absolutely fascinating analysis on precisely this topic by an AI researcher who's also a writer: https://archive.ph/jgam4
LLMs can generate convincing editorial letters that give a real sense of having deeply read the work. The problem is that they're extremely sensitive, as you've noticed, to prompting as well as order bias. Present it with two nearly identical versions of the same text, and it will usually choose based on order. And social proof type biases to which we'd hope for machines to be immune can actually trigger 40+ point swings on a 100-point scale.
If you don't mind technical details and occasional swagger, his work is really interesting.
