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

"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

correresmidestino.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 408 posts

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#101

Post by [deleted] »

madaxe_again wrote: post #55
Drupon wrote: post #14

An honest to god article full of em dashes that's not because it was AI but because it was a human using them as a crutch to get around crafting sentences that flow naturally. Almost brings a tear to my eye.

My writing used to be littered with them, but I now eschew the em in favour of en, as it has become too strong an anti-shibboleth. I have also taken to being sloppier in my prose, as I’ve had stories rejected for being “written by AI” - when they’re shorts I wrote more than a decade ago. Reworked them to sound like a moron, accepted. Sigh.

[deleted]

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#102

Post by pixel_popping »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #23
pixel_popping wrote: post #2

I agree with the take, but it's a temporary one, the sad reality is that we will be literally inferior soon, there will be a point where we will not trust human input without counter check by AI, we need to remember that we are kinda at the beginning of the AI era, in 5 to 10 years it's very unlikely that a human translator or software engineers will do better than the tooling we will have. There is already a tipping…

> there will be a point where we will not trust human input without counter check by AI That's nonsense. There is zero reason to believe that AI (with the current techniques) will ever become reliable enough to let it do its own thing, let alone better than a human. It's been years of development and you still can't trust it to get basic facts correct, not even "well it's better than it used to be". Saying it'll repl…

You come from the principle that humans are reliable at first which is partly right but also wrong in so many scenarios, you can even see lately the CVE spree happening, which demonstrates that human-made codebases have serious vulnerabilities and without the help of AI, we probably won't even know about them which proves that humans are not that "reliable", the current societal structure is also built around the fact that humans can't really be trusted, nothing really different with AI, we can't fully trust them like we can't fully trust humans.

It's not a fantasy, I would bet that no serious engineer nowadays is putting in prod a codebase not AI reviewed meaning we already can't work on our own, we must factor in the on-going decline of human capabilities (at least developers) as well of course.

I'm not really saying this because of any sort of hype, but I can personally relate where I went from actually coding to NEVER CODE in less than 2 years, and everyone around me is the same thing, what it will be in 5 years?

Knowing that really, most developers aren't even using proper tooling yet so they are very slow compared to what they could be, I mean how many people we hear saying they can't even saturate an Anthropic Max 20 subscription? I saturated 7 accounts the last 2h alone, it's because they haven't entirely rethought their workflows yet, why do they even have "downtimes", it should be 24/7.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#103

Post by xboxnolifes »

int3trap wrote: post #54
byronic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she did. Did you remember to read the article?

The article does not say that. The author doesn't take the text the other person dumped into ChatGPT and evaluate its quality. That is what OP is referring to.

The article clearly implies she has tried so previously.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#104

Post by Planktonne »

aaroninsf wrote: post #38

True, and relevant (I live with a professional editor)... yet I immediately think of Ximm's Law: Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon. Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false. Lemma: contemporary implementations have already improved; they're just unevenly distribu…

No one assumes that AI systems won't be improved upon. What people don't assume is that progress will be infinite in every domain cheaply forever.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#105

Post by AnodicElegy »

Out of curiosity, I pasted an article in French I was reading a few minutes before coming across this thread into ChatGPT and asked for a translation into English. It was certainly passable from a functional perspective, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to translate an article from a language I don't understand. But it was not professional-quality work. There were a couple instances where the French grammar was mistranslated, and the writing was perfunctory, not going into any effort to have the article flow like it was originally written in English instead of simply translating each sentence literally. Would I read an article written like this? A short one. A novel? Definitely not.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#106

Post by OptionOfT »

baby_souffle wrote: post #90
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's. I'm not sure how to formulate it yet but it seems there is some Peter Principle/Gell-Mann Effect corollary that is AI-related we can say here. Perhaps: "AI rises to the level of its users' incompetence." Or: "Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it"

> Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it I like this / generally agree. The only wrinkle is that - for some tasks - the verification _is_ "run the script, see if it worked, don't care how... just that it did" which is distinctly different from "not only did it do it correctly, it did so in the most direct and performant way possible". For a _lot_ of what I use LLMs to build, t…

And for as long that that runs on your computer, I don't care.

But the problem is that for many people they now believe it's ok to present a 10k line vibe-coded PR that only has been verified against external behavior, and some Senior Engineer needs to review it, in time, under pressure, without too much push-back, and lastly, it's the Senior Engineer that gets paged at 2am because something has fallen over.

Also, those scripts tend to start a life of their own, and because it looks good enough, people don't look at them again.

I recall a bug of someone vibe-coding a cleanup script for folders older than $x (on Windows).

Get the CreationDate, and sort. Delete older than $x. Except CreationDate can be null and null is always smaller than $x.

Oops.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#107

Post by Legend2440 »

layer8 wrote: post #84
kevincox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that unfortunate? Tasks that don't require high-quality translation now don't need human labor. We should be celebrating. The sad part is that we haven't figured out how to distribute our resources fairly to these people even thought their services aren't required as often. Instead we just take their wages and give them to the top 0.1%

It’s unfortunate because we are seeing more poor translations in all domains, and users suffer from it. It’s part of a general enshittification of things. There are few contexts where low-quality translations don’t constitute a degradation of user experience. Just one amusing example I saw recently: On the Amazon website, a submit button labeled “Go” in English was translated to something which when translated back w…

I think you overestimate human translators. There is a lot of very poor quality human-translated text out there. English translated from Chinese is famous for this.

There will never be enough expert-level human translators, and they tend to be very expensive. Machine translation has raised the floor.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#108

Post by mjmsmith »

layer8 wrote: post #85
mjmsmith wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting counter-example: https://xcancel.com/ValerioCapraro/status/206506665753442336...

I wonder if “Just 3 words: you’re not alone” would have been acceptable. :)

The Empire Strikes Back: "I'm your dad."

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#109

Post by numpad0 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #49
inigyou wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I put things through Google translate all the time and they're always unreliable. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes I need to know roughly what the original said. Infamously, Google used to say "geiler Typ" meant "horny guy" when it means "awesome guy". Google used to think "geil" meant "horny" in general, which it can but not usually

Google Translate is at the bottom of the barrel. All other AI translation tools are vastly superior. You'd want to evaluate those, and forget about Google Translate completely.

It's all the same, except LLMs are less precise with names.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#110

Post by jujube3 »

skydhash wrote: post #92
zuzululu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so what is software developer doing if writing code is not part of their job I don't see how not writing code is being offered as a moat, it seems like that is just translating business/stakeholder requirements to architecture/biz processes which is exactly the type of low hanging fruit that AI will capture first or was it your point that the position sits closer to the stakeholders (relatively compared to those lift…

So what a lab researcher doing if typing articles is not part of the job?

Well--well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/uy1ot1/w...

Post reply on HN