To make this approach work better, feed it a bunch of English text (or whatever language your document is in) before the document you really want to "spellcheck."
Essentially this isn't a spell "checker" so much as a spell "linter" — it looks for antipatterns statistically associated with bugs, and reports the patterns for further investigation.
If anyone knows where this trigraph-based "spellchecker" was first presented, I'd love to find out again.
I had a friend who wrote an article for the New York Times: the article made a lot of sense before she submitted it, but it was edited for length and style and it definitely read like a New York Times piece but didn't completely make sense.
I have been using reliable spellchecking since the 1980s.
If your goal is to check your writing for plausibility and rough grammatical correctness, that's certainly an open problem for deterministic, conventionally-written software tools.
My goal with spell checking is to make sure my occasional mechanical typos while using a desktop computer get caught before someone else has the chance to be annoyed by them.
I don't have an issue with using the wrong word entirely when writing at a computer, so that's not a use case I think about. It does happen when I use a smartphone, due to autocorrect and predictive typing, but that's not a case this Claude skill applies to.
So, for my use case, the ~6 orders of magnitude more energy used to send documents over the network to be hyperchurned on an array of GPUs guzzling electricity is pure waste.
It also makes the whole process orders of magnitude _slower_.
I find that massive waste and slowdown infuriating, even while conceding that it can perhaps deliver a little more value then the deterministic spell-checking algorithms I rely on.
The problem being misspelling, hence, "spell checker". Like, this seems pretty straightforward? Grammar checking if you cannot use the language properly is a pretty different problem space, and indeed has long existed and is exposed as a separate thing. And not just in fancy word processors either, if you go to something as simple as macOS TextEdit you'll see separate check boxes for "Check spelling as you type" vs "Check grammar with spelling". If someone wants to try out using LLMs for grammar no problem, but spell checking is purely about the mechanical and, importantly, deterministic aspect of typos or outright non-words.
>As the classic joke goes, "Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken."
There is a genuine touch of irony/meta in you using that here in this context. That sentence has no misspelled words, and importantly gets across the exact humorous meaning the human who wrote it intended. The joke literally only works because a human was able to make creative use of language. If you had an LLM agent posting for you to HN and it automatically changed that to:
>As the classic joke goes, "My spellchecker works great but could use some grammar checking."
Well, where would the joke be now!? This goes to the exact concern people have with powerful non-deterministic meaning-changing tools replacing deterministic meaning-preserving ones.
An example of a sentence like this with correct spelling but bad grammar would be "my spell checker works good." All of the words are what they're meant to be, but the last word is not the correct part of speech.=
But because computers are good at detecting "this doesn't match any known word" and bad at detecting "this matches a word but isn't the word you meant to use here," we've redefined "spell checking" to mean "find words that don't match any known word."
Your point about the joke is not correct. If I put my comment into ChatGPT and ask for a grammar check, it recognizes that it's a joke with deliberately bad grammar and suggests leaving it alone. If I put my comment into a grammar checker, it flags multiple errors in the joke. And "deterministic meaning-preserving ones"? Traditional spell/grammar checkers may be deterministic, but at no point have they ever been guaranteed to preserve meaning, or even been particularly good at it.
aspell works great. Back in the day I used some IBM employee written software on DOS that was a TSR that would spell check words for you in popular editors. In the 1990s every word processor had a decent spell checker. They all had the ability to add your own additional words.
I suppose poor implementations of boring old deterministic spell-checking are a thing, too.
Maybe that's some part of the disconnects in this thread.
Of course, LLMs are non-deterministic and do occasionally make mistakes, so you have to use them correctly and review their output. You shouldn't paste a doc into the web UI and tell it "fix all the mistakes and write the output to a new file." You should instead have it present each mistake and fix to the user as a diff and let the user approve or deny, either within the application or allowing the user to make their own edits. Never let it "rewrite" the whole document, that's the document-editing equivalent of giving OpenClaw root on your personal computer. Nothing good will come of it.
Classic spell checkers can't detect homophones. E.g. "there" and "their." Grammar checkers can, but at least the ones that I have used also like to change the tone of my writing to sterile corporate PC speak. LLMs used for grammar checking have not, in my experience, meddled with my tone. (Although sometimes they try to admonish me for it!)
Most grammar checker packages also include style checking, and the default options tend toward that style (because that’s the big market for them.) Most of them are also configurable, so you can disable style checking entirely while still checking grammar, or tweak which style rules are applied.
