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

Don't be a meat proxy

gruhn.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 786 posts

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#521

Post by nkrisc »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #291
jasonkester wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can’t understand why this is not a fireable offense. Like, I can see getting a strong warning the first time somebody notices you do this, then if you persist you’d have to be let go. Just like anybody else who is clearly not doing their job. Why would you tolerate this sort of behavior at your company?

I get it’s annoying and I personally hate it but firing someone for it is ridiculous. Are you expecting everyone to rewrite everything from an AI before they share it because that doesn’t sound a good use of company time either.

If someone asks you a question at work, you answer them, or explain why you won’t/can’t.

If they wanted an AI answer they could have asked it themself.

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#522

Post by skydhash »

embedding-shape wrote: post #505
skydhash wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results or be a reverse centaur, then I’d be glad not to be able to work with them. I’ve never seen a good example where…

> If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results Why would it mean that? That's one way of using them, sure. Personally, my code is better as I have more time to think about the software design than before, and I'm less avoidant of refactoring in my personal projects. > I’ve never seen a good example where AI is a net positive to any development workflow Alright, does that mean you also believe it's…

> Or just that you've never seen it, but you're open to it existing?

This one. Only a sith deals in absolute.

I don’t mind experiments to try to find methodologies for those tools. And I believe there are instances where they’ve been successfully used. The issue I have is the kind of generic statements that they are good enough to replace currently established methodologies. Like using AI is a panacea.

> Personally, my code is better as I have more time to think about the software design than before, and I'm less avoidant of refactoring in my personal projects

That’s a bit what I’m talking about. Have you investigated how it has helped you? And if there are other, more economical way to get the same result? Your statement seems more ritualistic than logical.

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#523

Post by metabagel »

maccard wrote: post #91

At my last job, a coworker did this to me. The first time it happened, I ignored it. The second time, I responded in public saying “thanks but I can ask Claude myself.” Nobody ever pasted me an LLM response again. YMMV with team size and seniority though

Would you be OK with someone looking up the answer on the internet?

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#524

Post by metabagel »

DanHulton wrote: post #519
bibimsz wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

devils advocate; why didnt you ask claude then? stop wasting people's time when you could get your own answers.

Because I wanted to ask a human who’s job it is to know, instead of an AI that might make things up and waste all our time.

Why is it their job to know, but it's not your job to know?

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#525

Post by AnimalMuppet »

throw310822 wrote: post #265
mariusor wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then do it and don't ask questions. I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, but this is such an unintellectual take that it veers into caricature. Props if that was your purpose.

No, it was a suitably nasty reply to someone who boasted of being nasty to colleagues trying to help. If your question can be answered by Claude, and you didn't ask Claude yourself, and when other people do it for you, you complain that you could have done it yourself, then my honest reply is that you should just shut up and learn to use Claude.

Every question can be answered by Claude. Not every question can be answered accurately by Claude. When Claude answers inaccurately, it doesn't tell you that it's doing so, so every answer must be considered "maybe inaccurate".

In business, a lot of the time, accuracy matters. If you want an accurate answer, and there's a human who knows, don't ask Claude.

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#526

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

> I can talk to Claude myself. It's going to be faster and I get to control the context. I don't need a meat proxy in between.

Yes you do apparently need a meat proxy, because either 1) you didn't tell them that you already talked to claude, or 2) you didn't already talk to claude. Either way they are forced to be your meat proxy because, apparently, you never asked an AI, or didn't tell them you asked an AI, and asking an AI is now table stakes.

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#527

Post by metabagel »

jpnc wrote: post #2

If you create a machine for laziness you're going to get lazy people. It's only going to get worse I'm afraid. Do you guys think we're going to see a de-evolution of human beings due to technology?

I disagree that it's necessarily laziness.

I work in the embedded space, and I routinely have to work with technologies I'm initially not familiar with. Internet searches are very hit and miss. So, is "AI". I generally use every tool at my disposal to try to get my foot in the door so I can understand better questions to ask and get the technical information I need to do my job.

I absolutely have no problem with someone replying to my question with a response from Claude. I appreciate them telling me the source, so I can assign an appropriate level of trust in the information.

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#529

Post by xyproto »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #449
xyproto wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also very easy to dismiss everyone falling into the "AI trap" as being mediocre in the first place, though. But one just can't know this without having seen their work pre-AI.

I think the "meat proxy" people are mediocre regardless of whether or not the were brilliant pre-AI. They've reduced themselves to a copy-paste go-between for claude and slack (or github or jira or whatever) and are mediocre now. If only they could turn back the clock...

Some skills are easy re-pick-uppable, like bicycling. Mathematics is probably more challenging. Not sure about programming, especially "borint" business-like programming.

Re: Don't be a meat proxy

#530

Post by antisthenes »

72deluxe wrote: post #447
Havoc wrote: post #192

The tricky bit is politely conveying this to people that lets call it don't think about things too deeply. They genuinely think they're helping by shoveling 5 pages of LLM output they didn't even bother reading into teams...

But if some people lack the understanding ability to even realise that they lack understanding, how do you tell them? Nightmare.

You need to tell them in high school, before their brains finish developing.

If you don't instill critical thinking into people by the age of 17-19 at the LATEST, it's already too late after. College is already too late.

You just slowly mitigate them at work, relegate them to strictly defined tasks. Some will need to be managed out.

Post reply on HN