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

311–320 of 729 posts

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

#311

Post by ryankrage77 »

supermatt wrote: post #162
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.

How is this? https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d

The stream-of-consciousness in the prompt is much better than the LLMs response. Yes, it's messy and unpolished, maybe even a little hard to parse, but it's so much richer for it. The way it is written lets me follow your thought process, shows that you were getting the words out quickly without much or any editing, and how you were exploring the idea and making it more concrete by giving it written form.

The LLM response has none of that character, it doesn't give me that little sliver of insight into the writer. It strips the idea from the author, making it generic and anonymous. The only thing I can gleam from text edited with an LLM like this (besides the literal meaning of the text), is that the author didn't care enough to express themselves.

Sure, it's more polished, but doing the writing manually is half the point. You have an abstract idea, you refine into something that can be communicated, and in doing so, explore that idea and improve your understanding of it. I've re-written this paragraph a dozen times trying to do exactly that.

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

#312

Post by andriamanitra »

onion2k wrote: post #105
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.

That implies you think the output of an LLM is only a rewording of the prompt, and that it doesn't add anything from it's corpus of training data. That's obviously untrue.

Even when LLMs add something it's a better idea to let the readers use LLMs to augment content. They have the best knowledge of their own background and what they're looking for.

Sharing information that is already in the corpus is simply not that valuable in a world where everyone has access to their own LLMs.

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

#313

Post by xdennis »

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…

> The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six

It astonishes me that in 2026 AD, people still like to pretend that our calendar is not based on Christ's supposed birth. Christians have no problem calling days after pagan gods (Wednesday = Woden's day, Thursday = Thor's day, etc), but for some reason we have to pretend like the calendar isn't based on the Christian god.

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

#314

Post by qarl2 »

Alpha3031 wrote: post #307
qarl2 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've never seen anyone post a copy-and-paste of some pages I have. For example, I was looking for a bathmat. My wife pasted me a list. Just a week ago. I don't think my wife is bizarre. It's unfortunate that you do.

I said I would find the action bizarre ("that", not "them"). Personally, I don't find it unfortunate to admit that some things still surprise me. If you choose to interpret that as judgement of your wife as a person, then that is up to you.

She just wanted to show me what she wanted; I don't think she wanted to encourage me to choose a different color.

SO BIZZARE!

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

#315

Post by matheusmoreira »

montroser wrote: post #27

I am pro AI, and also deeply share this sentiment. I think sometimes people have a big long thread with Claude where they feel enthusiastic about the back and forth being very productive -- and then they genuinely want to share the summary of the conversation with their colleagues so that they can feel it too. It's not just typing a short prompt and copy/pasting the response. But, Claude, especially Opus is so unnece…

Only after switching to Sol did I notice how verbose and smug Claude was. Now I wonder if Claude's at least partly responsible for the AI hate.

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

#316

Post by BeetleB »

LPisGood wrote: post #280
BeetleB wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am actually asking you to do your job. Pre-LLMs, if I got comments that were difficult to read in a code review, that PR isn't getting merged until they fix it. So: Review the docs. If it's that bad, just say "I don't understand these comments" and send it back.

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

#317

Post by bicepjai »

Totally agree with the core argument. I understand there must be some etiquette in the space of llm-writing where writers must respect the readers enough to edit and review. Also, pages and pages of LLM content is not something anyone should be proud about sharing. But we are in this world where condensing an argument is so easy that in the busy lives we live, sometimes some arguments are made with LLMs online. If those arguments are pages, I understand the backlash, but if it’s a terse argument, then I would urge others to address the argument made rather than categorizing them under AI;DR, it’s like ad-llminem in my view.

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

#318

Post by supermatt »

ryankrage77 wrote: post #311
supermatt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this? https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d

The stream-of-consciousness in the prompt is much better than the LLMs response. Yes, it's messy and unpolished, maybe even a little hard to parse, but it's so much richer for it. The way it is written lets me follow your thought process, shows that you were getting the words out quickly without much or any editing, and how you were exploring the idea and making it more concrete by giving it written form. The LLM res…

Thanks for the feedback.

It's getting those abstract ideas back out from the word-vomit I find very difficult. It is almost completely impenetrable to me to read that text - even though I wrote it!

Someone in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49338214) has shown a prompt to just break it up and fix the sentence structure rather than rewriting, which should hopefully help me to at least re-read what I have written.

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

#319

Post by LPisGood »

ithkuil wrote: post #274
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

They don’t review the output. That’s the thing. No one is reading this stuff, not all of it at the least.

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

#320

Post by Alpha3031 »

qarl2 wrote: post #314
Alpha3031 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said I would find the action bizarre ("that", not "them"). Personally, I don't find it unfortunate to admit that some things still surprise me. If you choose to interpret that as judgement of your wife as a person, then that is up to you.

She just wanted to show me what she wanted; I don't think she wanted to encourage me to choose a different color. SO BIZZARE!

Again, you are free to interpret my comments however you wish. My primary intent was to express my belief that people having different preferences to you regarding reading AI output does not constitute some bizzare hivemind, which you appear to have accepted. Your preferences regarding communications between yourself and your wife are none of my business. I recognise preferences may exist, and I am not one to kink-shame.
Post reply on HN