Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?

Hi HN, I'm a researcher trying to understand the ways in which you have limited or stopped using AI tools.

Knowledge work is evolving, and I'm trying to understand the lived experiences of how you are actually working. There's plenty of content out there in the genre of AI for "X", using tools etc - but I'm curious to learn if you adopted AI as part of some area of work - but have now chosen to stop it. What was the context? What did or did not work?

What did not work?

Many things appear to work at first, right. Most of the time, using AI seems great, until one spends a lot of time working out lots of important details. A bunch of prompts later...

Yeah.

Sometimes it is nice to begin with something, even if it is wrong. AI is great for that.

Funny how often it is we can write in response to errors! Out it comes! Like that fire hose trope.

In that vein:

Proposal templates, and other basic create tasks can start with a boost.

Oh, a surprising one was distilling complex ideas into simple, direct language!

And for code, I like getting a fragment, function, whatever all populated, ready for me to just start working with.

Bonus for languages I want to learn more about, or just learn. There are traps here. You have to run it with that in mind.

Trust, but verify.

What did not work:

Really counting on the things. And like most everyone I suppose, I will easily say I know better. Really, I do, but... [Insert in here.]

Filtering of various kinds.

I may add to this later.

I stopped using AI for code, everything it gives me requires manual checking and editing to work but now I have the overhead of not having the deep understanding I would otherwise have had if I figured out things myself from the start. I also stopped using AI as a sort of replacement for quick google searches in general, but I didn't go back to using google because now I feel those results are too shallow. I been trying to figure things out from primary sources as much as possible and thinking for myself since it seems to me the value going forward is having depth and breadth over the competition that you only get by doing things the very old and slow way.

Not at all. I'm an attorney. Fast law is bad law. If you're using LLMs (stop calling it AI ffs -- only morons parrot the marketing hype) to do law, you're just asking toget slapped sooner or later. Like the moron that is My Pillow Mike Lindell's lawyer. See here: https://ia801706.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.cod.21...

Using gen AI for anything artistic (illustrations, music, video, creative writing) is a dead end. The results are soulless and bland. People notice immediately.

Code completions are fine. Driving code through chat is a complete waste of time (never saves time for me; always ends up taking longer). Agentic coding (where the LLM works autonomously for half an hour) still holds some promise, but my employer isn't ready for that.

Research/queries only for very low stakes/established things (e.g., how do I achieve X in git).