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

If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

tombedor.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 551 posts

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#151

Post by hypfer »

emodendroket wrote: post #148
hypfer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep up with what? We've already established that most of it is noise. You don't need to keep up with producing noise.

Even if there's a lot of noise there's clearly something real there. People are shipping more working products than was previously possible, they're debugging faster than was previously possible, and various other things. I mean you can go fishing for things to confirm your skepticism if you want but it's pretty clear to me.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that you can't filter signal from noise.

So the actual problem statement is not "how do I keep up" but "how do I correctly tune my filter", which is solvable.

The biggest challenge there I think is that many people are not prepared for just how sharp and uncompromising that filter needs to be, but that too is solvable.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#152

Post by tonyhart7 »

hypfer wrote: post #145
visarga wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse when everyone around you is using it. How can you keep up? Companies face the same dilemma: investors, competitors, and users already use AI and have factored it into their expectations.

Keep up with what? We've already established that most of it is noise. You don't need to keep up with producing noise.

I don't know man, claude fable literally exceeded my expectation and its totally not a noise

feels like its becoming reality that we as a human don't need to this anymore

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#153

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

treesknees wrote: post #22

This exactly reflects my feelings lately. I have a specific coworker who has gone somewhat overboard - every single code review, answer to any question on email or Teams, every new story, even their personal opinions during a design or ideas meeting, are all direct AI output with no massaging or human touch or review. They're working on planning out an upcoming project, and I just get verbose and long documents to re…

I can't imagine my opinions just being AI slop that I've parroted. Surely you embellish just a little? Claude's so often bone-headed about things, this horrifies me. Gemini's worse. Even when the model agrees with me, it starts making me wonder if I'm not somehow wrong.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#154

Post by emodendroket »

hypfer wrote: post #151
emodendroket wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if there's a lot of noise there's clearly something real there. People are shipping more working products than was previously possible, they're debugging faster than was previously possible, and various other things. I mean you can go fishing for things to confirm your skepticism if you want but it's pretty clear to me.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that you can't filter signal from noise. So the actual problem statement is not "how do I keep up" but "how do I correctly tune my filter", which is solvable. The biggest challenge there I think is that many people are not prepared for just how sharp and uncompromising that filter needs to be, but that too is solvable.

If you're not going to experiment at all you're not going to be able to do that. Agentic coding was basically a joke the first time I tried it. Now it isn't.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#155

Post by vaylian »

avmich wrote: post #150

Why this suddenly becomes urgent? For long time we had automatic emails with "thank you" which weren't written by humans, why something is different today?

I found these e-mails always impolite. I knew perfectly well, that they were an automated response that only causes work on my end.

But this HN submission also highlights something else: AI content should be labelled. It is not always obvious that an AI has produced a PR.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#156

Post by AussieWog93 »

niuzeta wrote: post #34

A very prolific coworker who fully embraced claude has inflicted the team with a flood of AI-generated PRs. About six months later, it is his frequent bemoaning at the standup that their PR don't get reviewed, languishing in inattention. I don't think anyone - including myself - _intentionally_ avoid his PRs. It's just that he doesn't make it easy for the team to look at. This single headline perfectly captures what…

Have you spoken to him about this? If he's clueless enough to send AI responses to human messages, he's probably clueless enough to not realise why people don't do that.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#157

Post by hypfer »

emodendroket wrote: post #154
hypfer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that you can't filter signal from noise. So the actual problem statement is not "how do I keep up" but "how do I correctly tune my filter", which is solvable. The biggest challenge there I think is that many people are not prepared for just how sharp and uncompromising that filter needs to be, but that too is solvable.

If you're not going to experiment at all you're not going to be able to do that. Agentic coding was basically a joke the first time I tried it. Now it isn't.

You seem to be arguing against something I did not say?

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#158

Post by bigiain »

mattas wrote: post #126
Jensson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.

Also, make sure your wall of text prompts Claude to be extra verbose to really burn through that quota of theirs.

Now I'm wondering how hard it'd be to zipbomb their context window?

(And _now_ I'm wondering how hard it'd be to forkbomb their agentic workflow?)

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#159

Post by matkoniecz »

xgulfie wrote: post #86
rvz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a last resort, do the code-review with a live pair programming session. If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request. At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.

So if they say "idk Claude did it", what would you write in the PR review box?

"Author of this pull request has not yet reviewed code and does not understand it. This PR was submitted prematurely, probably by accident.

Please, check whether you accidentally submitted other unreviewed code - and close such PRs for now and reopen once reviewed."

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#160

Post by deadbabe »

hypfer wrote: post #142
deadbabe wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not just approve the PRs with little more than a cursory glance? One of two things will happen: 1. Things start breaking, proving AI generated code sucks and the individual spamming these PRs is incompetent. 2. The code works fine and reviews are unnecessary for anything other than liability concerns.

Some of us actually take the "engineering" in "software engineering" seriously. That includes taking responsibility and accountability so that the software doesn't become a sad and dangerous mess. If we want to be an engineering discipline, just yoloing in production is not going to cut it.

This no longer works when bad faith actors will push code straight from LLMs with little review, and respond to your comments with LLM responses. They will constantly leave you with the responsibility of verifying the output. You are the human in their loop. This is a brutal asymmetry. In the past, at least you knew a person probably spent more time handwriting code than you will spend reviewing it. This no longer applies, now the reviewer can easily spend more time than the author.
Post reply on HN