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

291–300 of 729 posts

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

#291

Post by Gigachad »

BeetleB wrote: post #124
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.

You can't keep up with the slop. And before you finish a first pass read on the wall of diff, another AI sloperator on the team has hit approve and the PR is merged.

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

#292

Post by Gigachad »

jedberg wrote: post #285

Every time this comes up I have to ask, how do you know it is AI? Sure, sometimes there are strong tells, like if they forget to take off the "Do you want me to change anything" at the end. But AI was trained on good writing. Good writing looks like AI. I've had to reduce my use of em dashes for example because they are an "AI tell". I used to like using the term "load bearing". And the list gets longer every day. Ev…

I know it's AI because the laziest coworker you know just posted 400 paragraphs of text on a minor topic.

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

#293

Post by shimman »

swatcoder wrote: post #203
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 :)

What I read is that you're self-conscious about your writing style and that you find the LLM processed version of your own stream of thoughts to be helpful to you yourself. Which is fine for you, but doesn't change that many people can get more insight out of your original text than they can out of the generated adaptation, and can do so with more interest and less fatigue. And indeed, you don't have to care about th…

These people need therapy not chatgpt subs.

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

#294

Post by otterley »

coderatlarge wrote: post #197
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 wonder if you’re equally offended by a public figure hiring young people to ghost write for their social media accounts or their books etc

The benefit and promise of social media, at least early on, was that it was supposed to be authentic - that when someone posted, it was really coming from them. Engagement was truly personal, at least for a little while. It still is for most.

In the book-publishing context, ghost writers have to be credited, even if the attribution is in small print.

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

#295

Post by Gigachad »

al_borland wrote: post #64
sega_sai wrote: post #5

If some text is AI written as a response to a much shorter prompt, then the prompt and/or sources used to make the text should be published instead (or at the very least together with the text).

I had to do this with my boss. He sent an email saying he asked AI about an assignment he gave us, then sent us the reply from the LLM. It was verbose and lacked any and all awareness of the constraints we have within the company. The assignment was poorly defined from the outset, and I asked for the prompt he used, because I thought that would be far more useful to understand what he was looking for rather than what…

Having this problem a lot at work currently. Every single jira ticket is a novel worth of useless text you have to skip over to find the human written parts. Occasionally important details get lost in the noise because they are sandwiched between slop.

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

#296

Post by bastawhiz »

jedberg wrote: post #285

Every time this comes up I have to ask, how do you know it is AI? Sure, sometimes there are strong tells, like if they forget to take off the "Do you want me to change anything" at the end. But AI was trained on good writing. Good writing looks like AI. I've had to reduce my use of em dashes for example because they are an "AI tell". I used to like using the term "load bearing". And the list gets longer every day. Ev…

Can you read something and tell when an author you like wrote it without seeing the attribution? I can. I think most of us could, because people use certain phrases or have a particular style. That doesn't make it bad.

AI writing isn't actually all that bad. But it has a very specific style, and there are MANY tells. I use Claude every single day, and it's immediately obvious to me when I'm reading something Claude wrote. "It's not X, it's Y" "That's the reframe" "The gap is" I could go on.

I too like using em dashes, and have been since I learned the keyboard shortcut over a decade ago. I've never been accused of posting ai-written text because of it.

AI is indeed trained on good writing, but it's also trained on bad writing. And it's post trained on specific things that are writing that aren't good or bad for reasons unrelated to style. What you're left with is a one-size-fits-all writing style. Doing math? Doing medicine? Doing anime waifu role play? It all starts from the same generic milquetoast style until you tell it not to. And to me (and apparently many other people) that's super easy to pick out.

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

#297

Post by jedberg »

Gigachad wrote: post #292
jedberg wrote: post #285

Every time this comes up I have to ask, how do you know it is AI? Sure, sometimes there are strong tells, like if they forget to take off the "Do you want me to change anything" at the end. But AI was trained on good writing. Good writing looks like AI. I've had to reduce my use of em dashes for example because they are an "AI tell". I used to like using the term "load bearing". And the list gets longer every day. Ev…

I know it's AI because the laziest coworker you know just posted 400 paragraphs of text on a minor topic.

Sure, that's one of those obvious tells. But when I sit and spend 10 minutes making a well thought out and researched comment, and then properly format it in markdown, and then the first response is "this is AI", it's really frustrating.

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

#298

Post by Alpha3031 »

qarl2 wrote: post #284
Alpha3031 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People having preferences different from you is not a hive mind.

Of course not. I didn't say anything like that. But I do see a consistent trend here regarding hostility to AI. It seems to be a pattern, and a strange one. I've never had someone angry at me for posting a Google search, for example.

I've never seen anyone post a copy-and-paste of some pages of the Google search results while also excluding the search term, and I would find that bizzare. I would assume that you, like most people posting a Google search, would post the link to that search, which in the case of Google includes a copy of what would be equivalent to the prompt. In my experience, most people posting Google links would also include a short explanation of why they think it relevant were it not immediately obvious.

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

#299

Post by LPisGood »

Gigachad wrote: post #291
BeetleB wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a code review, right? Give feedback that about the docs and block merging till the issue is resolved.

You can't keep up with the slop. And before you finish a first pass read on the wall of diff, another AI sloperator on the team has hit approve and the PR is merged.

Exactly this. Even if I spend a bunch of time requesting a review — and our team does respect each other enough to at least nominally respond to comments before merging — the update itself will be another thousand line diff from the original that requires again the same level of review or I just accept that it looks fine.

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

#300

Post by cyanydeez »

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…

ok, what part of the last decade led you to believe that communication decency has radically improved.?
Post reply on HN