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

Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#21

Post by gitonup »

phtrivier wrote: post #13
kmoser wrote: post #10

To be technical, what he read wasn't prompt, it's part of the AI's response to the prompt. But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.

No, that politician trusted some poorly paid staff to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful). The staff used an LLM and did not bother to check (or got their check wrong.) One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence should be in proportion to the gravity.

There's a lot to unpack here.

> that politician trusted some poorly paid staff

- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?

> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).

- Is procedure not his job as a politician?

- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?

> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.

- Which is which?

- Which has more gravity and why?

- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?

- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#22

Post by 650 »

I have both experienced and hear my coworkers across the tech industry complaining about having to parse slop from their peers, management and juniors they work with. AI comments on their merge requests that sound right, but are subtly incorrect and irrelevant that add to their cognitive load. PRD (Product Requirements Document) slop from PM's that are adding features for the sake of it and is essentially busy work. Leadership asking to add AI to evaluate employees and dashboards out the wazoo.

The floor has been raised for sure, and I am writing less boilerplate than before, and am able to diagnose bugs in my work quicker, but the amount of people that seemingly just copy and paste the AI output without critically thinking is causing me distress. There are seemingly no consequences either, more AI = more good.

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#25

Post by netsharc »

kmoser wrote: post #10

To be technical, what he read wasn't prompt, it's part of the AI's response to the prompt. But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.

Encouraging that news.com.au (a Rupert Murdoch shop) staff can't tell between AI prompt and response...

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#26

Post by customguy »

yagudaev wrote: post #11

* AI Response. Not prompt. I was expecting him to read a proper prompt. The prompt would be what he would tell the AI system. “You are a speech writer, an expert on XYZ… your task is to write ABC…” It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai. And agree we can replace many of them with AI. At least we will have the opportunity to talk to the ai directly about concerns.

One very tiny silver lining in all this will be leaked prompts. E.g. we all know how a non-apology reads, and call them out as such already, but when you see "write a really contrite apology without actually conceding anything while subtly casting doubt on the character of those making the accusations, but in a way that seems really open and constructive" it'll hit different still, I think.

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#30

Post by Toutouxc »

phtrivier wrote: post #13
kmoser wrote: post #10

To be technical, what he read wasn't prompt, it's part of the AI's response to the prompt. But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.

No, that politician trusted some poorly paid staff to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful). The staff used an LLM and did not bother to check (or got their check wrong.) One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence should be in proportion to the gravity.

The slop jockey failed to deliver a cleaned up speech. The politician failed to proofread it or even just skim it once before giving the speech. The journalist failed to understand the difference between a prompt and LLM output.

Every single level failed here. Nothing works anymore. No one cares about anything making sense. I want fucking out.

Post reply on HN