writing

Two Ways to Use Language Models for Writing

Language models have become powerful tools for writers, offering opportunities to enhance both the ideation and execution phases of writing. There are two main ways to use these tools when creating a text.

The first approach involves using the language model as a brainstorming partner. It acts as a sparring partner to help you come up with ideas, content, or themes. In this case, the model supports your creative process, but you write the final version of the text yourself.

The second approach is different. Here, you take the role of the idea generator. You think of the key themes, solutions, and content, then ask the language model to craft the final text based on your input. It assists with the actual production of the polished version.

Interestingly, there’s something of a divide in how these two approaches are viewed. One of these methods tends to face criticism, while the other is widely accepted. The brainstorming method, where the writer maintains control over the final output, is often seen as the “right” way to use such tools. In contrast, letting the model write the finished text tends to draw questions about creativity, originality, and over-reliance on technology. It’s an interesting cultural reflection: does the process of writing matter more than the result, or is the content itself what truly counts?

At the heart of this conversation lies that very question. What is most important in writing—what is written or how it’s created? Should the process define its value, or is it the final message that matters most to the reader? For example, is originality tied to the way the text is shaped, or is it about the ideas and substance behind it, no matter how it’s written?

Ultimately, the answer might depend on the context. Perhaps the method of collaboration isn’t as important as the intention behind the work and the quality of the message. Whether you use a language model as a brainstorming partner or a full-fledged writing assistant, the value of your writing will always lie in its ability to connect with the reader.

Understanding Task Completion Through Communication

Why do we get different responses when we ask someone to “do something,” “finish something,” or “completely finish something”? The phrasing of a request can drastically change how people interpret and approach it. Saying “do something” often implies starting the task without necessarily focusing on completion. For example, asking someone to “clean the living room” might only result in tidying up visible clutter. “Finish something” shifts the focus to completing the task, but the level of thoroughness can vary. If the instruction is to “finish cleaning the living room,” one person might vacuum and dust, while another might only consider the task done once everything is spotless. The most explicit phrasing, “completely finish something,” leaves little room for misinterpretation. It clarifies that the task should be done thoroughly and to the highest standard—whether that means scrubbing every corner or polishing every surface. These distinctions show how subtle wording changes create different expectations about what “finished” actually means.

Context adds even more depth to how we interpret tasks. When you ask someone to “clean the kitchen,” the details of the situation influence understanding. Are you expecting a quick wipe-down before guests arrive, or do you need a deep clean of every cabinet and appliance? Without context, the task may result in a completely different outcome than intended. Clear communication benefits from specifying what “finished” looks like in a given scenario. Context also provides purpose—it lets people know why the task is important and what role completion plays in the larger picture, whether it’s preparing for an event or meeting a deadline.

The way we phrase requests also has a significant impact on how we think about and approach tasks. Slight adjustments in wording can shift focus. Asking someone to “start vacuuming” emphasizes getting the task underway, while asking them to “finish vacuuming thoroughly” sets an expectation of both progress and thoroughness. This isn’t just about clarity—it’s also about psychology. The phrasing we use creates mental cues that guide our actions, whether it’s a simple reminder to begin something or a directive to wrap it up completely.

By being mindful of the words we choose, the context we create, and the clarity we aim for, we can reduce misunderstandings and align expectations more effectively. When asking someone to complete a task is as clear as possible, collaboration flows more smoothly, and everyone involved can focus on what truly needs to be done.