I personally do not use LLMs (knowingly) at all, largely for environmental reasons. The improvements are, to me, not worth the attrocious energy use. I will happily pay 20% or whatever more in both money and time. I also have no interest in technology that impedes my skill development. I do not want to use anything that makes me a worse writer over time. YMMV, I am answering the OP not evangelizing. Counter arguments…
Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
51–60 of 61 posts
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#52I did not stop. I do limit my use today, compared to a few months ago. Most of that is having successfully mapped out use cases that make sense, I find myself doing less seeking. Where it is a net gain, go; otherwise, why bother?
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#53I use DeepSeek both locally and online more frequently and find it more trustworthy but it still frequently makes things up. Maybe because it’s Chinese I’ve found it better at translation and somewhat more nuanced.
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#54I installed claude code (an agentic ai that runs on your machine and can browse and edit code, run the build, and use unix commands) This has largely taken me out of the loop. I give it detailed task like I would a junior engineer, and we discuss approaches and align on direction, priorities, and goals, and it then goes off for literally hours iterating on the code. I have done about 3 months worth of extremely compl…
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#55I did not stop. I do limit my use today, compared to a few months ago. Most of that is having successfully mapped out use cases that make sense, I find myself doing less seeking. Where it is a net gain, go; otherwise, why bother?
What are the kinds of use cases for which it makes sense to you? And how do you evaluate the nature of the gain before deciding whether or not using AI will be worth it?
I don't evaluate the nature of the gain before deciding whether AI will be worth it. Fact is I do not know prior to some use.
I suppose the better question, given the above is how I decide to try it.
I wait until I have both time and a purpose to gamble with. When both become available, I will make an ernest attempt. I may make several.
The process is not a whole lot different than it has always been for me and new tools and tech. One simply has to give it a go to understand value.
Use cases are in other comment.
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs (stop calling it AI ffs -- only morons parrot the marketing hype) Researchers have called much less intelligent things AI since 1956. Before there were GPTs, there were RNNs and CNNs. AI is the field of study.
Oh, my mistake. Lying is fine as long as other people are doing it. Good logic.
The LLM models are something. To me they look like knowledge holograms. Or maybe just a huge pattern inference machine.
And they are ODD. Like a fragment of smarts. Dangerous and for sure not something we can rely on.
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs (stop calling it AI ffs -- only morons parrot the marketing hype) Researchers have called much less intelligent things AI since 1956. Before there were GPTs, there were RNNs and CNNs. AI is the field of study.
Oh, my mistake. Lying is fine as long as other people are doing it. Good logic.
It’s a term with historic precedence.
It’s an aspiration to mechanize thought.
Are we there yet? It’s a continuum.
Excellent logic.
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#58I installed claude code (an agentic ai that runs on your machine and can browse and edit code, run the build, and use unix commands) This has largely taken me out of the loop. I give it detailed task like I would a junior engineer, and we discuss approaches and align on direction, priorities, and goals, and it then goes off for literally hours iterating on the code. I have done about 3 months worth of extremely compl…
Are you exaggerating about "literally hours"? If true, that implies you're making better use of CC than I am. For me the record is maybe 10 mins. Do you write extensive functional/technical instructions? E.g. how large is your prompt (incl. task descriptions in files the prompt refers to). Curious to know.
But i’m giving it a goal with a fairly distant milestone where it needs to hit 5-10 smaller milestones and even for advanced ai mixing the system languages I’m mixing in this large project there are build errors it powers through on its own (fixing the building, linking, or syntax, or using the apis for the versions of all the things i’m using) and there are some combinations of tech (windowing, webviews, etc.) and some architectures of things that require it to try multiple approaches to succeed.
Sometimes it will ask like “how am i doing so far should i continue”, or can you run this visual thing and report back. But there can be 30-60 mins between it doing that.
It also has to scan a lot of files and find the things it needs to find to fill its own context. Like “let me examine how you implemented that on mac and windows and come up with a solution for linux”
Other times while it’s reasoning if i notice it’s going down a rabbit hole I’ll point it out and set it in the right direction without interrupting it and when it moves onto the next thought it’ll incorporate my suggestion but it didn’t really stop or need another big prompt or goal.
There are plenty of times where I do need to step in and baby it with small goals through something tricky or obscure. But even in those cases I don’t have to write any code directly i just ask it to do xyz small change and hand it back for me to test
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see AI the same way we see calculators: they don’t make us worse at math, they just offload repetitive computation. The core question is not “are we degrading,” but rather: are we thinking better with better tools? Personally, I use AI only to reduce boilerplate and explore alternatives — the decision-making and abstraction stays on me. If someone starts thinking less because of tools, the problem isn't the tool —…
This is misplaced circular fallacy, but to each their own. I value my life, and by extension my mind quite highly. Those that seem to use these tools become dumber in ways they do not notice. In much the same vein I become smarter in relative retrospect just holding to my guns and shielding my exposure. If you use a tool, whose primary consequence of use is that you become damaged and less each time you use it, and t…
They see the same thing as you but are overjoyed to power down their brain and spend more time thinking about their personal hobbies and sports and 90 day fiance instead of real problem solving or code.
Re: Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?
#60I don't use AI at all, primarily because I believe its harmful and I am quite mindful of things. I've observed colleagues who have used it extensively, I've often been a late adopter for things that carry unspecified risk; and AI was already on par with Pandora's box in my estimation when the weights were first released; I am usually perceptually pretty far ahead of the curve naturally (and accurately so). Objectivel…
This is super interesting, could you share some examples? Plenty of philosophers are with you in that technology doesn't just exist as a "tool" but actively affects the ways in which we perceive and relate to the world, and understand ourselves. What are some ways in which you have seen the perceptual abilities of coworkers erode over time? An efficiency oriented logic makes us think that we're getting the work done…
I took a course awhile back taught by a retired military professor on communications and it was eye-opening. He covered what you would expect but with a slant towards 5GW, irregular warfare, political warfare; and heavily referenced Gershanek as a supplemental book; which is published by Navy Press. (https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Political%20Warfare_web.pd...)
Communications holds a privileged position that is tied strongly to and influences our individual psychology and identity.
Reflected appraisal is how we adopt culture from our parents, and it can be manipulated to distort that in ways that are harmful, if you understand the mechanics; and distortions cause psychological stress (the basis for torture), which can be used for malign influence, destructive interference of core identity, compulsion, or torture.
This along with other structures, elements, and clustering, can cause changes where if you aren't mindful of your environment, you don't recognize its happened, all you have is confusion, as your identity/soul gets pealed back and hollowed out, and this is the basis for how cult programming, and the related involuntary hypnosis works in practice. The same goes for PoWs from the 1950s.
There's quite a lot of material on this if you know where to look.
> Some ways in which you have seen the perceptual abilities of coworkers erode over time?
This is going to sound very subjective, but their overall cognitive speed has decreased dramatically. When you learn a skill to the point where its automatic, you can get a good flow going from a to b to c pivot to e, etc with no delays; and they struggle with each step/connection, each reasoning portion. Almost like there's interference, but its persistent and consistent; and they either don't notice, or they get defensive.
When they need to make a determination or design decision, they will miss the pivots, and not account for things that lead to significant mistakes which would never have happened before.
The solutions they come up with are for the most part no longer creative. They used to take functional structures they had collected and knew well that worked, and repurpose them, or apply them in ways that were quite creative towards a problem that they defined. Now they largely don't; and the definition of the problems they define are only slightly better than the LLM at this point; it used to be much better.
A lot of due diligence is also no longer being done. When asked about specific things, instead of being able to answer, they get confused, sometimes even incoherent, behaviors that seem very dementia-like, but these are guys almost fresh out of college in their mid 20s, and they aren't on drugs (we are all tested regularly).
There are ways people can be blinded, where they will adopt a misleading stance based upon structure (without any reasoning), even very intelligent people.
I'm of the opinion the inconsistency of the LLM's responses which are treated as communication, are gradually damaging people. Incidentally, people who have had a lot of exposure also have stopped taking on the more difficult or challenging tasks.