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

AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

rickmanelius.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 729 posts

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#121

Post by golergka »

LPisGood wrote: post #56

My coworkers continue to dump hundreds of lines of AI documentation in every PR and every other line of code has between one and ten lines of AI generated comments, talking about the real unlock and how things are byte for byte identical on the load bearing path or how the acceptance ladder is misleading. Features are coming out and metrics are improving, but we’re basically in a post readability code base, with the…

> perhaps it’s useful for the AI on its next pass

Yes, that's the entire point. And it is extremely useful. Why wouldn't I want this?

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#122

Post by Planktonne »

supermatt wrote: post #92
Planktonne wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What was thoughtless about it? You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.

Yes, I did. That was the whole point of the post.

I believe you believe you did, but the post makes more of a point through its conception than it does through its prose.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#124

Post by BeetleB »

LPisGood wrote: post #56

My coworkers continue to dump hundreds of lines of AI documentation in every PR and every other line of code has between one and ten lines of AI generated comments, talking about the real unlock and how things are byte for byte identical on the load bearing path or how the acceptance ladder is misleading. Features are coming out and metrics are improving, but we’re basically in a post readability code base, with the…

It's a code review, right?

Give feedback that about the docs and block merging till the issue is resolved.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#125

Post by iwontberude »

cortesoft wrote: post #48

I really like the point I read somewhere the other day; instead of sending me the AI output, just send me the prompt you used to generate it. That is the only part that contains only the information you are trying to convey. The rest is just guesses flowery language added, and it confuses the actual message being sent.

[dead]

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#127

Post by rfgplk »

krelas wrote: post #73
ademup wrote: post #22

I'll probably be downvoted to the bottom of the ocean, but I feel this needs to be said: - Why does it matter who or what wrote a thing? And how would you know if the /content/ is worthwhile, unless you read it... - The ability to "detect AI" is imperfect at best. 90% AI written? 5%? How would you know, unless you read it.... - If you didn't read it, then why brag about it with an "AI;DR"? - If you are wrong, and you…

The shape of Claude’s writing style is horrible to read and easy to spot, and that’s a ground truth.

A belt-and-braces approach.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#128

Post by Sha1rholder »

I personally don't care whether a piece of writing was AI-generated as long as it's useful or insightful.

However there's only 10% of AI-generated writing that is worth reading. If some articles convince me that there's somebody behind it contributing valuable understanding, I'm willing to overlook the telltale AI mannerisms. It's understandable that some domain experts aren't very proficient in English.

That said, statistically speaking 90% AI-generated pieces are a waste of readers' time. It's a good strategy to simply skip them.

I know this looks like a bot comment. It's not. It's a much older style of writing known as Chinglish. That's why as a non-native English speaker, I can totally understand why someone would want to use AI to help with their writing.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#129

Post by tpoacher »

gortok wrote: post #36

The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six that it's not universally offensive and reviling to post an AI-generated response to another person. If I'm reading something on the internet, I'm either reading it to learn, or I'm reading it to be persuaded. If I wanted the LLM to teach me (thank you, no), I would ask an LLM. I'm reading your website/newsletter/email because I…

I completely agree in principle, but to play devil's advocate, if an "author's" prompting technique is better than mine such that they generate a more useful article than what my own AI session might produce on average, then maybe there's value in some generated articles.

The above still implies some effort going into good prompting, however. I completely agree about the uselessness of "build me a castle; no bugs plz" style generated articles.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#130

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

rfgplk wrote: post #96

It's an ego issue for most people. For one, part of it comes from genuine intimidation or fear, the notion that a machine can be smarter than you, or at least produce answers that are more knowledgeable than you could. But I think the more striking issue is what LLMs do to the perceived value of expertise. Especially in engineering there's this weird pecking order hierarchy, where someone should be listened to just "…

Example from work.

I described a problem to a new hire. Symptoms, how to reproduce, etc. and asked him to go investigate it, pin down the problem and solve it. It was a non-trivial and hard to reproduce bug.

Instead of doing any of that, he sent back very quickly a wall of text. Generic advice. Nothing relevant. Along with this he sent a PR that would have broken prod.

It was useless, and basically amounted to throwing the assignment back in my face. Since I, like literally everyone else, already have Claude Code, having an expensive person use it for me (slowly and badly) is worthless. In fact, it's negative value, and a huge waste of time. ChatGPT would have given me the same wall of text for pennies.

In the end I got rid of him.

I'm sure he thought I was "intimidated", and had "ego" issues. But he's actually just redundant.

Post reply on HN