21–30 of 145 posts
> Suspicions aroused, I clicked on the “Document History” button in the top right and saw a clean history of empty document – and then wham – fully-formed plan, as if it had just spilled out of someone’s brain, straight onto the screen, ready to share. This isn't always a great indicator. I can't stand Google Docs as an interface to write with, so use VIM and the copy/paste the completed document into it.
Why can't the plan be judged on its merits? Rigorous verification of the idea is a good thing that should happen anyways. The main potential problem I see is transmission of privileged information to a third party. I assume they are working at a business to make money, not a school or a writing competition.
The unstated elephant in the room is that you can't possibly know how much thought the originator has given to this. You can't know if it has been reviewed and checked for minimal sanity, or just chucked over the fence. So you have to fully vet it. And, if you have to fully vet it, then what value has the originator added? Might as well eliminate their position.
It's where we're headed.
Why can't the plan be judged on its merits? Rigorous verification of the idea is a good thing that should happen anyways. The main potential problem I see is transmission of privileged information to a third party. I assume they are working at a business to make money, not a school or a writing competition.
The unstated elephant in the room is that you can't possibly know how much thought the originator has given to this. You can't know if it has been reviewed and checked for minimal sanity, or just chucked over the fence. So you have to fully vet it. And, if you have to fully vet it, then what value has the originator added? Might as well eliminate their position.
You can just ask them if they reviewed it in detail.
I don’t really find it better when someone ads a disclaimer. What am I supposed to do then? There’s still an expected default behavior of reading it, and if I don’t I need to confront them and say “I don’t care what you got an LLM to say, why not give me your view”. It’s inappropriate under any circumstances imo
When I receive something that either I suspect an LLM wrote 90% of, or the author is up front about it, I always ask "Did you check all of this yourself to verify before I pick it up?" and maybe half of the times I get a no, and then they return a day later with a new document and some fixes. Other half the time people say yes, I start digging into it, start finding bunch of weird stuff and send it back to the person…
You're nicer than some of us.
If it's an LLM getting it wrong, and it's not caught before it gets to you, then what value is the intermediary adding to the process?
> Suspicions aroused, I clicked on the “Document History” button in the top right and saw a clean history of empty document – and then wham – fully-formed plan, as if it had just spilled out of someone’s brain, straight onto the screen, ready to share. This isn't always a great indicator. I can't stand Google Docs as an interface to write with, so use VIM and the copy/paste the completed document into it.
This is _exactly_ how I feel. Any time saved by precooking a "plan" (typically halfbaked ideas) with AI isn't really time saved, it is a transfer of work from the planner to whoever is going to implement the plan.
Later, at someone else's desk:
"Chat, summarize these 10 pages into 3 points."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I receive something that either I suspect an LLM wrote 90% of, or the author is up front about it, I always ask "Did you check all of this yourself to verify before I pick it up?" and maybe half of the times I get a no, and then they return a day later with a new document and some fixes. Other half the time people say yes, I start digging into it, start finding bunch of weird stuff and send it back to the person…
> I don't really care if it's a person or the LLM getting it wrong, You're nicer than some of us. If it's an LLM getting it wrong, and it's not caught before it gets to you, then what value is the intermediary adding to the process?
Because the prompter is basically gaslighting reviewers into doing work for them. They put their marks of authorship on the AI slop when they've barely looked at it at all which convinces the reviewer to look. When the comments come back, they pump the feedback into the LLM, more slop falls out and around we go again. The prompter isn't really doing work at all—the reviewers are.
> Suspicions aroused, I clicked on the “Document History” button in the top right and saw a clean history of empty document – and then wham – fully-formed plan, as if it had just spilled out of someone’s brain, straight onto the screen, ready to share. This isn't always a great indicator. I can't stand Google Docs as an interface to write with, so use VIM and the copy/paste the completed document into it.
> This isn't always a great indicator. Right. Certainly not dispositive. > use VIM and the copy/paste the completed document into it. But he did mention tables. You'd think if they weren't just ASCII art, there'd be _some_ google docs history about fixing them up.