Was this written by an LLM? It uses several phrases and structures that I associate with genAI writing, but not with this newsletter. If so, I'm a bit disappointed—there are some good points in here, but it seems like it's a bit lower in quality from what I'm used to in this publication. More importantly, however, I'd love to see this publication contributing to a culture of citing AI use. Which tools were used, how, what was or wasn't double-checked by a knowledgeable human...I don't necessarily hate AI tools, but I think that disclosure is an excellent norm to move towards.
To get more granular with my criticism: there aren't really "tips above" as described at the end of this post. This is a good explanation of why email is difficult—and that's something I wish people talked about more!—but there's not really very much actionable information about what to do about it. If you mean that people should follow the links above, like the one to your "Stop Checking Email. Process It Instead." article (which looks to be excellent), then it should say that instead.
Thanks for the comment! Yes, we had some crossed wires on this one and this should not have ran as is. It leaned too heavily on AI generation from a ChatGPT session that was a mix of a transcript and AI conversations.
I've been thinking about whether I'm going to leave it up and reference it in a follow-up post about it or rewrite it. My current lean is a rewrite because it's below the bar of good enough and is actually a useful post.
What I most appreciate about your comment is the reminder that our readers care about quality. We put a lot of work into the craft and it often feels like people don't care. It's good to know that the team and I aren't overworking merely for our own tastes.
Was this written by an LLM? It uses several phrases and structures that I associate with genAI writing, but not with this newsletter. If so, I'm a bit disappointed—there are some good points in here, but it seems like it's a bit lower in quality from what I'm used to in this publication. More importantly, however, I'd love to see this publication contributing to a culture of citing AI use. Which tools were used, how, what was or wasn't double-checked by a knowledgeable human...I don't necessarily hate AI tools, but I think that disclosure is an excellent norm to move towards.
To get more granular with my criticism: there aren't really "tips above" as described at the end of this post. This is a good explanation of why email is difficult—and that's something I wish people talked about more!—but there's not really very much actionable information about what to do about it. If you mean that people should follow the links above, like the one to your "Stop Checking Email. Process It Instead." article (which looks to be excellent), then it should say that instead.
Thanks for the comment! Yes, we had some crossed wires on this one and this should not have ran as is. It leaned too heavily on AI generation from a ChatGPT session that was a mix of a transcript and AI conversations.
I've been thinking about whether I'm going to leave it up and reference it in a follow-up post about it or rewrite it. My current lean is a rewrite because it's below the bar of good enough and is actually a useful post.
What I most appreciate about your comment is the reminder that our readers care about quality. We put a lot of work into the craft and it often feels like people don't care. It's good to know that the team and I aren't overworking merely for our own tastes.
Charlie this article is so relevant for me right now. I'm learning falling into the pit of living in your email is such a waste of precious time.