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

271–280 of 729 posts

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

#271

Post by [deleted] »

Insimwytim wrote: post #243
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…

[deleted]

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

#272

Post by Alpha3031 »

raincole wrote: post #182
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.

The prompt is the whole chat history. It would be like 10~20 times longer than the final output if the author gave the slightest amount of shit.

The author giving the slightest amount of shit seems like a big assumption to make, but ultimately even it that were the case I don't see why I would prefer what I read to be curated in that specific manner (having access only to what has been filtered past some black box). As opposed to being able to choose what to read from the whole chat history.

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

#273

Post by gowld »

mediaman wrote: post #188
tpoacher wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's possible, but I've experimented with different style guides and prompt methods and have never gotten it to output what I'd call "good" writing. It is almost always low information density. Sometimes I can get it to remove most of the extraordinarily cliche phrases it injects into everything, along with the tortured, gauche prose (especially Claude). But what remains is an expansion algorithm: it takes a simple i…

"Good" is subjective, but I found this OOTB sufficiently information-dense and easy-to-customize:

https://claude.ai/share/ac747c6d-2a62-40b7-b33e-06a94cf34344

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

#274

Post by ithkuil »

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…

Don't get me wrong, I loathe the AI style as the next person.

But I don't buy your argument: if a person used AI to produce a text it doesn't mean they haven't steered the I in the direction they wanted the conversation to go and (hopefully) review the output.

That's an added value

Yes, it would be nice if it was also pleasant to read

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

#276

Post by yoyohello13 »

Insimwytim wrote: post #243
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…

Wow! that comment you linked speaks to me. I was watching a review video for a game yesterday that was so obviously written by AI it was actually painful to listen to. I started reading the comments and there were several people praising this Youtuber on their great use of metaphor. Literally "subbed because you're such an amazing writer." It actually shook me to my core. If those were real people making those comments, there is no hope for us. I need to believe those were mostly bot comments just to maintain my sanity.

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

#277

Post by _--__--__ »

aaaronic wrote: post #252
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…

My "favorite" Claudism is when I critique its work and ask it to remove some unnecessary part of the design -- and then the diff has more green than red because it added comments about why the code is no longer there -- the code that was never in the mainline and never asked for!

Yeah this is awful. Every codebase becomes a graveyard of references to ideas or behaviors that were barely considered. It's probably also a compounding source of context poisoning when a minority of the comments/documentation are about how the current code actually works.

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

#278

Post by swat535 »

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.

You're going to have convince upper management why the team's velocity is suddenly affected in feature releases once they stop using AI.

All the execs know that they can refresh the screen faster and see the features for marketing and sales.

When has engineering ever had a voice anyway? The bean counters have been looking to cut us out since the inception of our industry.

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

#279

Post by [deleted] »

venzaspa wrote: post #104
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…

People are posting on this very website and commenting on Reddit using AI. I can't get myself into the headspace that would enable this behaviour. What exactly is the point of not engaging in conversation yourself and getting a bot to post it for you on an free platform. Crazy.

[deleted]

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

#280

Post by LPisGood »

BeetleB wrote: post #225
LPisGood wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds easy in principle, but a half dozen of these sort sorts of massive PR’s per week is basically untenable. I’m not gonna read the hundreds of lines of added documentation to decide if they’re correct or not. The price of generating new words is just so much higher than the price of evaluating it that I can’t be bothered.

> but a half dozen of these sort sorts of massive PR’s per week is basically untenable. Actually, rejecting them is precisely what will make them easy. "Sorry, the comments are so bad I'm stopping here. Please fix them and then I'll resume the code review." You're giving everybody (including yourself) more work by: 1. Reviewing the code (even if you skip the documentation). 2. Letting too many abstruse comments in wh…

I think you’re overestimating how easy it is to just declare I won’t be doing my job.
Post reply on HN