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

241–250 of 729 posts

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

#241

Post by supermatt »

miyoji wrote: post #217
supermatt wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is barely any at all Clearly you either didn't read it, misunderstood it, disbelieved it, or just DGAF :)

No, I did read it, and I think I understood it. My summary in my own words is that you find that LLMs can massage your writing and reduce the stress of communication. Did I believe it? Well... You have an account on HN dating back to 2013 with over 6000 comment karma, you clearly didn't have trouble communicating like a normal person for a decade on this website before the advent of LLMs. Your spelling and grammar in…

I haven't always struggled so much, but my ability to read has severely diminished over the past decade. I find it much easier to communicate in short form. It has always been disproportionately time-consuming for me to write though.

It is the articulation of ideas that I struggle with and so I usually edit my comments multiple times. And to get rid of some of the more stupid stuff I say.

To be fair, that word salad would read more like this comment if I gave it some time, but it would take many hours to produce a simple post with the same readability as the LLM.

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

#242

Post by BeetleB »

b112 wrote: post #231
BeetleB wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Because it wasn't pre-AI. It was normal for people to post links as arguments, counterarguments, etc. It annoyed me, and I didn't bother clicking most of them, and would occasionally tell them "If you can't bother articulating…

You're precluding the possibility that the other party instructed the LLM to write what he intended to say. That is not currently possible. At best, you could train on millions of personal examples of style, eg historical emails, reports, etc, and you'd still never get what the person would have written. I'd be astonished if an LLM didn't even miss important nuance, data, and focus on the wrong point. It think the pa…

> At best, you could train on millions of personal examples of style, eg historical emails, reports, etc, and you'd still never get what the person would have written.

You wouldn't get it verbatim, but your mistrust in AI reflecting what you intended to say is unwarranted.

I use LLMs to clean up poorly OCR'd hand written notes. It's the exception where I need to "fix" its output. It figures out what the notes intended, and writes it up fairly well.

> It think the parent's point was, hearing a summary of what someone was thinking, from a second party isn't interesting as data from the primary source.

For a lot (most?) of AI slop, I agree. But pre-LLMs, this was universally a bad idea. The first draft always sucked, and was easy to misunderstand. A good LLM, with a good system prompt, will usually produce something better than the input it is fed. Most people are poor at expressing their thoughts.

> When you come to listen to Bob the Great, having a minion walk put and paraphrase Bob's words isnt the same. Human, LLM, or not.

Most people aren't Bob The Great, but Bob The Incoherent.

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

#243

Post by Insimwytim »

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 think there are some, who couldn't be a part of the public conversation, precisely because of they inability to add anything to said conversation.

LLMs enables them to post (or, rather, paste) something, in an attempt to trick others into believing they do have something to say.

They think they sound smart now, because LLMs are "very much the “stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”"[1]

So now we are flooded with stupid people's attempts to show us how smart they are.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49300763

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

#244

Post by frogperson »

I don't think AI is ever fully going away, but I can't wait for the bubble to pop and customers are forced to pay the actual cost of tokens. i think that's the only way we see a meaningful reduction in slop.

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

#245

Post by qarl2 »

minimaxir wrote: post #214
supermatt wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is barely any at all Clearly you either didn't read it, misunderstood it, disbelieved it, or just DGAF :)

Many different people in this HN submission have given you similar feedback: given that, you should consider that your priors are not correct.

It could also be that this site has created its own hive-mind environment. Which is especially and bizzarely intolerant of AI at the moment.

I don't want the prompt - I may not have access to an LLM to evaluate it. The entire argument here is misguided, and deeply angry about AI.

It's equivalent to answering a question with "google it". Which is often times just plain rude.

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

#246

Post by blitzar »

sebastiennight wrote: post #166
dspillett wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me calling someone uncool would be rather hypocritical in afraid! I've done some interesting things, cool even, but that doesn't necessarily make conversation with me interesting/cool! I'll go with letting them know I find it dickish and perhaps even a tad offensive.

Counterpoint: if you're uncool yourself, you might be uncool enough to call out uncoolness, from a "game recognizes game" point of view

lame recognises lame

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

#247

Post by crab_galaxy »

blitzar wrote: post #232
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…

Is Ai really any more offensive than the templated influencer slop of the past few years? If your favourite creator is engaged in generating this style of content, then I think it says more about your tastes than their morals. Don't smash the like button, don't share and unsubscribe.

Everyone is fighting OP on this extremely reasonable take when some of us are dealing with coworkers that copy slack messages/JIRA ticket comments/PR feedback into Claude and respond with the pasted output as is back like that’s completely acceptable.

Like I don’t need to be placated by someone else’s AI agent when I call out something in a PR, especially when they have such an aversion to conciseness and resolution

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

#248

Post by stronglikedan »

delecti wrote: post #170
corndoge wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fighting the ocean is futile

It's not the ocean, it's the poster's own team. A simple "AI comments suck" in a sprint retro would be trivially easy and would at least start the conversation.

Doesn't matter. You'll come off as the baddie. It's the foreseeable future. Best just to learn how to interpret AI generated shit, or learn how to run it through AI and have it translate it to a more concise format without all the buzzwords. It'll take getting used to, but it'll save your career.

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

#249

Post by blitzar »

edaemon wrote: post #240
blitzar wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Ai really any more offensive than the templated influencer slop of the past few years? If your favourite creator is engaged in generating this style of content, then I think it says more about your tastes than their morals. Don't smash the like button, don't share and unsubscribe.

Volume is the problem. There's so much more of it now. Many platforms I used to enjoy are just overwhelmed with valueless content.

On platforms where you can not curate what you are fed, the healthiest option is to leave.
Post reply on HN