Is writing with LLM assistance that different than writing with a typewriter 100+ years ago? Than using a computer and printer 30 years ago?
Each can be seen as using a tool to add false legitimacy. But ultimately they are just tools.
I know you didn't write this
31–40 of 145 posts
Re: I know you didn't write this
#32Why 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 problem comes from the asymmetry between the effort that went into generating and judging. You can have one person spinning out documents that can keep a whole team busy and dragging everyone down.
Along the same lines as "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Re: I know you didn't write this
#33> 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.
Another copy/paste reason - I can't count the number of times I've written up something for work on my own google account by mistake, then paste it into a new doc on the work account so I can share it.
You really should use separate browser profiles...
Re: I know you didn't write this
#34The content of the document matters too. I don't really care if someone was AI-assisted writing a project plan. As long as it's sane and clear I'm not gonna lose sleep over that. However for my performance review I definitely want my manager to put in the effort and actually tell me nuanced thoughts on my performance. I don't want AI output for that part.
Re: I know you didn't write this
#35> 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.
I do something similar. I write markdown, then render it and copy-paste that in
You can now paste markdown directly into Google docs (Edit -> Paste From Markdown)
(I have the same workflow, via Obsidian)
Re: I know you didn't write this
#36I know I'm an outlier on HN, but I really don't care if AI was used to write something I'm reading. I just care whether or not the ideas are good and clear. And if we're talking about work output 99% of what people were putting out before AI wasn't particularly good. And in my genuine experience AI's output is better than things people I worked with would spend hours and days on.
I feel like more time is wasted trying to catch your coworkers using AI vs just engaging with the plan. If it's a bad plan say that and make sure your coworker is held accountable for presenting a bad plan. But it shouldn't matter if he gave 5 bullets to Chat gpt that expanded it to a full page with a detailed plan.
Re: I know you didn't write this
#37Is writing with LLM assistance that different than writing with a typewriter 100+ years ago? Than using a computer and printer 30 years ago? Each can be seen as using a tool to add false legitimacy. But ultimately they are just tools.
[deleted]
Re: I know you didn't write this
#38> But if you ship it and people use it, you’ve created an implicit promise: that you can maintain, debug, and extend what you’ve built. If AI assembled it and you can’t answer basic questions about how it works, you’ve misled users about what they can depend on.
Agree with the premise but this part is off. When I find a project online, I assume it will be abandoned within a year unless I see evidence of a substantive team and/or prior long-term time investments.
Re: I know you didn't write this
#39Is writing with LLM assistance that different than writing with a typewriter 100+ years ago? Than using a computer and printer 30 years ago? Each can be seen as using a tool to add false legitimacy. But ultimately they are just tools.
Those two things aren't even comparable. Both of those are using technology to physically imprint letters onto the page, but in both cases those are still your own ideas in your own words.
Re: I know you didn't write this
#40Why 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.
Because AI can generate meritless works far faster than anyone can judge their merits. Asking someone to read your AI thing is basically asking someone to do the work for you. If you respect your colleagues time, you should be sharing your best version of inputs, not raw material. Not only that, you should have thought about and be able to defend it. Throwing some AI thing over the fence, you haven’t thought about it either, why would you expect your colleague to?
I’d add to that, long form AI output is really bad and basically unsuitable for anything.
Something like “I got GPT to make a few bullet points to structure the conversation” is probably acceptable in some cases if it’s short. The worst I can imagine is giving someone a “deep research” article to read as if that’s different from sending them to google.