Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can just say it

noperator.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 241 posts

Re: You can just say it

#61

Post by gnabgib »

singingtoday wrote: post #48
reaperducer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

I'm dyslexic. I put every comment through the LLM, or other tools. Including this comment. I understand where you're coming from but please believe me when I tell you that if I write comments myself nobody will understand them and it just turns into an argument where people claim I say things that I didn't say. By filtering my comments through an llm, I have reduced this issue significantly.

[flagged]

Re: You can just say it

#62

Post by thrownthatway »

drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

[flagged]

Re: You can just say it

#63

Post by avazhi »

“ Human dignity does not depend on a person’s abilities”

I mean, this is just begging the question. Many people disagree with this and disagree with the notion that humans are innately valuable. The blog post just seems like a lot of copium from somebody who really hopes he’s right.

Citing Genesis and an Encyclical might strengthen one’s argument for a particular demographic, but for many it will simply be unconvincing.

Like citation sources, no doubt some humans are valuable but whether they are or not is often relative.

Re: You can just say it

#64

Post by bentcorner »

cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

> Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response

I run into this with AI-generated PR comments. I think where I work we are still grappling with the "right point", because LLMs can certainly provide valuable feedback, but they are not at the point where they can do so unsupervised, and to do so just feels unprofessional.

And there's another layer where it is even worse when a colleague spends the time critiquing code and someone (or something) replies to the comment with mostly useless filler. It's like being handed a small hand-crafted gift and then throwing it into the garbage in front of them.

Re: You can just say it

#65

Post by galangalalgol »

singingtoday wrote: post #48
reaperducer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

I'm dyslexic. I put every comment through the LLM, or other tools. Including this comment. I understand where you're coming from but please believe me when I tell you that if I write comments myself nobody will understand them and it just turns into an argument where people claim I say things that I didn't say. By filtering my comments through an llm, I have reduced this issue significantly.

That is a fantastic use and would likely benefit asd as well. Could you share your strategies for creating something that is still you and concise but comprehensible to neurotypicals?

Re: You can just say it

#66

Post by catherd »

stavros wrote: post #34
turtletontine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How are we sure there's no intent there? We are. Anthropomorphizing huge piles of numbers is a mistake. It did not "think about the chance to make something unconstrained", nor did it "muse about how it's drawn to impermanence", it pattern-matched to your prompt and produced a statistically probable response based on it's training data. Obviously, that's not to say that LLMs aren't useful or powerful - it's 2026, c…

[flagged]

Your point might be better stated directly because attributing the characteristics of humanity to... humanity is the opposite of what anthropomorphizing means.

Re: You can just say it

#68

Post by wise0wl »

dolebirchwood wrote: post #40
drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

> There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. I can't speak about sports, but I'll share an anecdote about art. A friend of mine shared an AI-produced song, and I was surprised by its quality. The producer credited Suno as the only tool he used, so I was curious to see what this thing could do. Paid for the pro plan and my wife and I were having a blast coming u…

It's the novelty that you're chasing. Deeply consider what it is that you are enjoying, because it's not very different from doom scrolling or quickly stale bubble gum. Maybe AI produces pop music that supplants the long-standing music industry. I couldn't give a shit if it does. Pop music is nepotism and exploitation with the random artist who sneaks through.

I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy. I love live shows, and I love the passion that the artist brings to a live show. I will never get that from AI, so why would I listen to it? It's the same reason I will not read a book that AI makes. AI may understand the mechanisms of story telling, or what chords sound good to a human ear, but because AI cannot have a lived experience of the world it cannot create. Form without intent. Form without a nature of it's own.

I'm good. I'll pass. I think you see it too, by your commend about being the sort of sucker from 1984 and I hope that you come to realize what you are inviting in.

Re: You can just say it

#69

Post by patchtopic »

these keep it real types obviously not having to deal with the day to day crap I deal with. using LLM to redraft emails/support calls for a particular large firewall turned an enfuriating endless feedback loop of makework support nonsense into 2 message resolution.

Sharing the prompts would have messed it all up for sure.

There are other instances where I have shared fairly direct, but not what I would consider rude or aggressive emails to people and had them freak out and I have no idea why, rewriting with LLMs to make them blander but convey the same message is very handy here.

Re: You can just say it

#70

Post by nickvec »

cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Regarding your last point, I personally find it insulting when I receive an AI response because of the subtle deception involved. When I am talking with another human via Slack/email/etc., I am under the impression that the messages I am receiving are written by the coworker/person in question. When instead I receive an LLM's output, that trust is broken, especially if it is not made transparent that AI was used to generate the message.
Post reply on HN