81–90 of 258 posts
Something that really frustrates me about interacting with (some) people who use AI a lot is that they will often tell me things that start “I asked ChatGPT and it said…” stop it!!! If the chatbot taught you something and you understood it, explain it to me. If you didn’t understand or didn’t trust it, then keep it to yourself!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's not worth writing, it's not worth reading.
I mean, there is a lot of hand written crap to, so even that isn't a good rule.
Reading the straw that broke the camel's back commit illustrates the problem really well: https://hackerone.com/reports/3125832 . This shit must be infuriating to dig through. I wonder if reputation systems might work here - you could give anyone who id's with an AML/KYC provider some reputation, enough for two or three reports, let people earn reputation digging through zero rep submissions and give someone like 10,…
Reputation systems for this kind of thing sounds like rubbing some anti-itch cream on bullet wound. I feel like the problem seems to me to be behavior, not a technology issue. Personally I can't imagine how miserable it would be for my hard-earned expertise to be relegated to sifting through SLOP where maybe 1 in hundreds or even thousands of inquiries is worth any time at all. But it also doesn't seem prudent to jus…
> I feel like the problem seems to me to be behavior, not a technology issue.
Yes, it's a behavior issue, but that doesn't mean it can't be solved or at least minimized by technology, particularly as a technology is what's exacerbating the issue?
> It's fundamentally about trust in people.
Who is lacking trust in who here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, usually what people had done was take your question on a forum, go to lmgtfy, paste the exact words in and then link back to it. As if to say "See how easy that was? Why are you asking us when you could have just done that?" Yes is true there could have been a skill issue. But it could also be true that the person just wanted input from people rather than Google. So that's why I drew the connection.
I largely agree with your description, and I think that’s different from the above case of explicitly asking for experience and then someone posing the question to an LLM. Also, when googling, you typically (used to) get information written down by people, from a much larger pool and better curated via page ranking, than whoever you are asking. So it’s not like you were getting better quality by not googling, typical…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on if they are just repeating things without understanding, or if they have understanding. My issue is that people that say "I asked gpt" is that they often do not have any understanding themselves. Copy and pasting from ChatGPT has the same consequences as copying and pasting from StackOverflow, which is to say you're now on the hook supporting code in production that you don't understand.
We cannot blame the tools for how they are used by those yielding them. I can use ChatGPT to teach me and understand a topic or i can use it to give me an answer and not double check and just copy paste. Just shows off how much you care about the topic at hand, no?
Something that really frustrates me about interacting with (some) people who use AI a lot is that they will often tell me things that start “I asked ChatGPT and it said…” stop it!!! If the chatbot taught you something and you understood it, explain it to me. If you didn’t understand or didn’t trust it, then keep it to yourself!
As much as I'm also annoyed by that phrase, is it really any different from: - I had to Google it... - According to a StackOverflow answer... - Person X told me about this nice trick... - etc. Stating your sources should surely not be a bad thing, no?
Something that really frustrates me about interacting with (some) people who use AI a lot is that they will often tell me things that start “I asked ChatGPT and it said…” stop it!!! If the chatbot taught you something and you understood it, explain it to me. If you didn’t understand or didn’t trust it, then keep it to yourself!
I recently had this happen from a senior engineer. What's really frustrating is I TOLD them the issues and how to fix it. Instead of listening to what I told them, they plugged it into GPT and responded with "Oh, interesting this is what GPT says" (Which, spoiler, was similar but lacking from what I'd said). Meaning, instead of listening to a real-life expert in the company telling them how to handle the problem they…
Oh but it is, used wisely.
One: it's a replacement for googling a problem and much faster. Instead of spending half an hour or half a day digging through bug reports, forum posts, and stack overflow for the solution to a problem. LLMs are a lot faster, occasionally correct, and very often at least rather close.
Two: it's a replacement for learning how to do something I don't want to learn how to do. Case Study: I have to create a decent-enough looking static error page for a website. I could do an awful job with my existing knowledge, I could spend half a day relearning and tweaking CSS, elements, etc. etc. or I could ask an LLM to do it and then tweak the results. Five minutes for "good enough" and it really is.
LLMs are not a replacement for real understanding, for digging into a codebase to really get to the core of a problem, or for becoming an expert in something, but in many cases I do not want to, and moreover it is a poor use of my time. Plenty of things are not my core competence or anywhere near the goals I'm trying to achieve. I just need a quick solution for a topic I'm not interested in.
Something that really frustrates me about interacting with (some) people who use AI a lot is that they will often tell me things that start “I asked ChatGPT and it said…” stop it!!! If the chatbot taught you something and you understood it, explain it to me. If you didn’t understand or didn’t trust it, then keep it to yourself!
As much as I'm also annoyed by that phrase, is it really any different from: - I had to Google it... - According to a StackOverflow answer... - Person X told me about this nice trick... - etc. Stating your sources should surely not be a bad thing, no?
If I wanted to slip a vulnerability into a major open source project with a lot of eyes on it, using AI to DDOS their vulnerability reports so they're less likely to find a real report from someone who caught me seems like an obvious (and easy) step. Looking at one of the bogus reports, it doesn't even seem like a real person. Why do this if you're not trying to gain recognition?
They're doing it for money, a handful of their reports did result in payouts. Those reports aren't public though, so there's no way to know if they actually found real bugs or the reviewer rubber-stamped them without doing their due diligence.