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

341–350 of 729 posts

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

#341

Post by supermatt »

Planktonne wrote: post #323
supermatt wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages. Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.

I think you're conflating a couple of different things here. 1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to. 2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less…

I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them.

  1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM.
  2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship.
  3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools.
You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims.

As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention.

You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.

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

#342

Post by asadotzler »

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.

Attention is all they need. It's ego-tripping, whoring for social status.

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

#343

Post by freetime2 »

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…

What's astonishing to me is how quickly people at my workplace have adopted this habit. Six months ago my manager was vociferously complaining about his boss asking him to review a lengthy document that was clearly AI generated, saying that his boss wasn't even capable of understanding the document the LLM had created. Now the majority of technical communication I get from my manager is just a transcript exported directly from ChatGPT.

Recently on a call with a junior coworker where they asked me to look at some changes they had made, they were completely unable to answer any questions that I asked on their own. The way the conversation went was: I ask a question, they type my question into a ChatGPT prompt, we read the output together and discuss whether it makes sense. This is a person I've had great discussions with in the past, and who has frequently had really good insights, but seems to have completely tapped out.

To be fair, the outputs from ChatGPT tend to be quite good. It's the inputs people give it where problems most often arise - and people seem far too eager to charge ahead with a vibe coded solution built on invalid or incomplete inputs/assumptions. And it's shocking to see how quickly and willingly people have handed over control to LLMs.

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

#344

Post by nunez »

> Customer support would be a perfect example. We’re not looking for artisanal “did you make sure to reset your phone” style dialogue.

Yeah...I'm probably dropping whatever services do this. If the company can't invest the capital to hire humans that help humans, then what does that say about their products?

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

#346

Post by qarl2 »

Alpha3031 wrote: post #320
qarl2 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-sh…

My dearest dude -

You called my wife bizarre. Then you said "TECHNICALLY, I didn't call your WIFE bizarre I called her ACTIONS bizarre."

I would ask you to stop talking to me, but it seems unlikely to work.

So. You have a nice day, now.

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

#347

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

miyoji wrote: post #169
otterley wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN Guidelines explicitly forbid posting AI-generated comments; they will be deleted if detected or reported. I'd like them to go further and delete links to AI-generated content, but I haven't been able to persuade management to do that yet.

The HN guidelines prohibit a lot of behaviors that remain unmoderated, you can see it in any thread that goes over 80 comments.

HN relies heavily on moderation by users through flagging and downvotes. Hacker News is only going to survive if its community is willing to go to the effort to protect it.

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

#348

Post by devrob »

I used to have a rolling product satire I called "Claude Handshake" which basically explained how cold-email is dead today as people feed email contents into Claude and Claude responds with a draft, that usually comes from another person doing the same thing.

The idea was to just avoid sending email altogether and just simulate the interaction entirely using Claude.

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

#349

Post by DennisP »

kennyadam wrote: post #310
yoyohello13 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commen…

At least you didn’t over-react. Some people seem so afraid of consuming AI-generated content that they see it everywhere. A popular YouTuber says “thanks for the pushback” in a YouTube video and has the mob at his door, instantly, despite it not being written by AI. In the comments for any blog post or article that hits the HN front page, there is always someone confidently calling it out for being unmistakeably writ…

What I find tiring: the same. writing. style. everywhere.

Various youtubers I subscribe to are using apparently AI-written scripts now. They all wrote and spoke just fine before, each with their own particular style. Now they just sound like Claude. I know it's still their thoughts, and I'm still interested in what they have to say. Maybe they're using AI to save time, or maybe they've read too much AI text and now that's how they write. But it kinda takes the sparkle and personality out of everything.

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

#350

Post by urbnspacecowboy »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #276
Insimwytim wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commen…

> If those were real people making those comments

Really, does it matter? Lots of YouTube comments are zero-effort attempts to juice a video/channel's engagement metrics (aka "commenting for the algorithm"), and whether they're accomplices/sockpuppets, or just unimaginative parasocial parasites, is basically unknowable from the outside.

Post reply on HN