61–70 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It was difficult to finish reading your post after you put the OP down for stating that they believe they're more original and more capable than an LLM. Maybe leave that part out next time, or at least don't lead with it. It does not help your argument the way you think it does. I wonder why you would mince your words about LLM use at all though. Instead of couching your methods in language like, "I 'built' a program…
We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter. For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to wa…
> And third, most importantly, who would read anything I wrote if they could just generate it themselves? This should be embarrassingly obvious to everyone, but allegedly there are hoards of vibecoders and other slop producers to whom it never occurs (if it's not astroturfers pretending to be that). If prompt slinging is your only expertise, you already are redundant.
We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter. For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to wa…
[flagged]
> Why exactly?
I think the top reason for most people is so that they're worth hiring. If you offer no more than an AI, what is your value?
Is scotty79 human? Was this written by you? Or are you just an AI? And if you are human and wrote it, why did you do that when an AI could do it better than you? And if an AI could do it better, why even communicate with you? I could just go talk to Claude.
Other reasons might be to push the SOTA past what an genAI can do. Or to produce human work in human society.
Maybe someday we'll be past needing to be hired to eat, and then maybe we just stop worrying and let genAI be better than all of us. But I find that to be undesirable.
> And you are definitely not better than you + AI.
I think this is what I'm saying. If you're not better, you're just in the way. If you're not better, then you Here's an example: early ChatGPT sucked at remotely complex jq. I wanted a function to do fuzzy comparisons between JSON objects, and it just could not get it right. I didn't speak jq, so it was just me pasting errors and output and cutting code--zero value add.
Eventually I gave up. I then spent 3 hours working on learning jq and and came up with a more robust and capable solution than ChatGPT had been working toward.
Now you're going to correctly say that ChatGPT didn't have enough training data to perform well with this relatively new and relatively infrequently-used language.
But my point is that you need to be better than it so you can do novel things that it can't.
All this assumes, of course, that the AI-bro future of AI doing everything doesn't come to pass. If it does, it'll be global economic collapse and we can just go back to feudalism.
> I no longer say I wrote a program
Other management verbs work well here, I think. "Produced", "oversaw", "managed development of", etc.
> In the end I believe the content is the king.
I think so, too. The question is, do you have anything to offer, or should I just go to a bot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was difficult to finish reading your post after you put the OP down for stating that they believe they're more original and more capable than an LLM. Maybe leave that part out next time, or at least don't lead with it. It does not help your argument the way you think it does. I wonder why you would mince your words about LLM use at all though. Instead of couching your methods in language like, "I 'built' a program…
[flagged]
FWIW, I've been on the Internet for a long, long time. I took no offense. But I still think I'm better than AI at those things. :)
I think the argument is misguided, even if I agree with the principle: it is based in the effort one puts in and how it's similar to a sport. I don't care whether my favorite author sweated for months facing a typewriter, of he effortlessly dictated the final form of the book in one sitting to a secretary while sipping mojitos. I think my issue with AI has more to do with the signal it sends: reading takes effort, pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can get access to the LLM without you. And you can read a car maintenance book. That doesn't mean you can fix your car now. The author vouched the LLM output using their experience, that's what you get. Unless you are as experienced in their domain, it will take you time to figure out if the output of your LLM prompt is correct or non-sense.
Yeah, the somelier argument. It doesn't work for me sorry, because you wouldn't accept a book by John, a friend of Hemingway, as a Hemingway book no matter how much he assisted in editing. Nor a Picasso museum exhibition is by Marie because Marie chose which paintings to display. Authorship and edition are different claims.
The creator still gets the credit.
LLMs can just be the part that accelerates laying the code down.
I think folks are just too emotional over a tool that we are ignoring drawing similarities on purpose. That or just different audiences, hackers vs professionals. The latter just meaning being payed and usually working in a team. The styles can be different and the value placed on crafted code vs results.
Let the reader decide the value of what they read at face value.
I honestly feel this ai disclosure thing is just pure mindless elitism and worse - entitlement - from readers. "Crappy" writing has always existed, deal with it. Stop reading as soon as you want
I think the argument is misguided, even if I agree with the principle: it is based in the effort one puts in and how it's similar to a sport. I don't care whether my favorite author sweated for months facing a typewriter, of he effortlessly dictated the final form of the book in one sitting to a secretary while sipping mojitos. I think my issue with AI has more to do with the signal it sends: reading takes effort, pa…
> I can get access to the LLM without you. And you can read a car maintenance book. That doesn't mean you can fix your car now. The author vouched the LLM output using their experience, that's what you get. Unless you are as experienced in their domain, it will take you time to figure out if the output of your LLM prompt is correct or non-sense.
Traditional authorship is self-vouching: writing a coherent book on a complicated subject is hard. You can't exactly bullshit your way through 500 pages of car maintenance minutia. If a book actually manages to make its way all the way to a book store, there is a pretty good chance it is worth reading.
LLMs change this equation. Any idiot can prompt an LLM into writing reasonable-sounding slop, so any idiot can now write a book on any subject. Combine that with self-publishing and print-on-demand, and suddenly all bets are off.
If 99% of LLM-written (or LLM-"assisted") books on a subject are garbage you aren't going to buy a book and hope it is the 1% - it makes far more sense to save yourself the money and get the mediocre answer by prompting the LLM yourself. Want expert information? Just buy an LLM-free book written by an actual expert.
Unpopular take: if it was never critical or mandatory to disclose who you have read before publishing your own writing then you dont need to disclose ai use. Let the reader decide the value of what they read at face value. I honestly feel this ai disclosure thing is just pure mindless elitism and worse - entitlement - from readers. "Crappy" writing has always existed, deal with it. Stop reading as soon as you want
Unpopular take: if it was never critical or mandatory to disclose who you have read before publishing your own writing then you dont need to disclose ai use. Let the reader decide the value of what they read at face value. I honestly feel this ai disclosure thing is just pure mindless elitism and worse - entitlement - from readers. "Crappy" writing has always existed, deal with it. Stop reading as soon as you want