Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't paste the AI, please

dontpastetheai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 632 posts

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#161

Post by fragmede »

ra wrote: post #54
seer wrote: post #35

I’m not convinced tbh, a lot of my colleagues messages are “x broken” or “I do y” … no context whatsoever, and then I have to coax their context for making these decisions. Since people started using Claude now I get full context of everything… might be too much sure, but to be honest over-communicating seems better than under-communicating - sure it’s boring and tedious but that shifts the blockage to me. Otherwise…

> sure it’s boring and tedious but that shifts the blockage to me I think that's the key. Generally people would rather not receive slop because the receiver has no idea how much thought the sender invested in the communication. In your example, the more context the better. I think there's an interesting nuance there.

> the receiver has no idea how much thought the sender invested in the communication.

That's an interesting thought. The message can have metadata that says the sender's spent 1/5/10/60/120 minutes or some other metric of how much thinking over the communication happened. Just need a way to monitor people's thoughts and digitize them to make that happen.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#162

Post by lelanthran »

croon wrote: post #139
nchmy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made some ninja edits, so perhaps you didn't see them. But it is entirely possible that both a person and an Ai could produce writing that is both good or bad, useful or misleading. You can also direct the Ai to write about specific points and, again, it may write somehing good or bad. I provided a link to a chat I had with chatgpt about this very conversation and it shows everything I was saying. The fundamental i…

> The fundamental issue is whether people are taking responsibility to communicate what needs to be communicated, in an effective manner. While I agree with your overall distinction, I believe the scenario you portray is so unrealistic that you will never encounter it. Yes; if I could wrangle Claude into communicating exactly as I would have, the practical difference is of course not observable. But that's never happ…

> The value in having a human write it is that whenever something bad/misleading/redundant is introduced, that person will learn from the feedback,

For me, the value of receiving comms from a human is different: it communicates not just the idea itself, but the fact that the human already understands the idea.

The people arguing that round-tripping their thoughts through AI still means that it's their thoughts apparently also believe that the game of telephone always results in perfect comms.

It's not just AI; adding more hops to a route changes the message when each hop is a human too, it's just that we notice it more when the hop is an LLM because of just how different they write compared to humans.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#163

Post by hanselot »

The inverse of this is. Don't ask me a question a 9b llm could have answered.

If you are getting blocks of llm text perhaps it's because you don't deserve their input and could have satisfied your query by not making it someone else's problem.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#164

Post by Hugsbox »

jiaosdjf wrote: post #104

Sorry this website is too polite. DO NOT FUCKING PASTE AI RESPONSES TO ME, EVER, PERIOD. When someone tells me they "talked to Claude" they sound retarded. Just tell me you looked into it, and I fucking swear to god if you just took what Claude said verbatim and do not understand the problem then you are a cunt and I will stop working with you. When someone pastes LLM output in chat I completely ignore it. I will jus…

I like this comment so much I checked out your profile. Turns out I just like the cut of your jib.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#165

Post by [deleted] »

philipportner wrote: post #126
wseqyrku wrote: post #115

> Don't Paste the AI, please You're gonna need a stronger language. Why do you think people love AI? If I have to think and god forbid read the response I might as well live in the woods or something

Linked a the bottom of the post is the angry version https://dontpastetheai.com/angry/

[deleted]

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#166

Post by salawat »

jorisw wrote: post #122
nchmy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made some ninja edits, so perhaps you didn't see them. But it is entirely possible that both a person and an Ai could produce writing that is both good or bad, useful or misleading. You can also direct the Ai to write about specific points and, again, it may write somehing good or bad. I provided a link to a chat I had with chatgpt about this very conversation and it shows everything I was saying. The fundamental i…

My problem isn't who wrote it, but the pretense of something having written by a person while it wasn't. There's something profoundly disrespectful about it towards the receiver.

There's something profoundly disrespectful about feeding snippets produced by human authors en masse into a machine learning algorithm to create a predictive text generator to be applied as labor replacement, regardless of accuracy or appropriateness to the context or use case. There's something profoundly disrespectful about forcibly scraping the human corpora without asking for permission first, or considering compensation in anyway, or just setting out that "yeah, we're doing this, and damn the consequences". There's something profoundly disrespectful about then taking this device running on investor money chasing the promise of a value that just can't conceivably be delivered, and employing it to do all the unethical things you could imagine just because you can engineer the "No" out of the model.

Of course the level of moral disengagement that's rife around here generally precludes any recognition of such things, as that might be construed as "harshing the vibe on the innovation, man". So I guess everyone had better just settle in and get used to some serious profound disrespect until this type of thing hits enough of a critical mass that a societal ethics framework begins to manifest around it and not be ignored.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#167

Post by crossroadsguy »

> It's a great drafting partner

This I have been doing a bit. I strictly asks it to never give me suggestions but raise questions, concerns, tell me if it feels if something can be better, style-wise or otherwise without giving me those options.

And a bit of other overall feedback requests.

And if the model adheres to this and doesn't jump the gun, it indeed works quite nice. But it often jumps the gun, forgets, doesn't give a f- about my instructions, or whatever. Maybe more robust local models will better.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#168

Post by Hugsbox »

robinei wrote: post #77

The article says they could have asked an AI themselves, but that is missing that I may have an agentic context with exactly the right information to answer the question well, which they do not have. For example because I worked on something closely related. Such an agent output is very useful, and taking the time to rewrite that to a short personal answer is not always worth it.

Your agentic context is still going to shit out 3 pages where a sentence would suffice. Use AI all you want, and then WRITE THE ANSWER IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#169

Post by nchmy »

lelanthran wrote: post #157
nchmy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is... I think your linked chat demonstrates quite well why you are wrong. The sender's burden is a few lines of text "Write me $FOO, conclude with $BAR". The recipients burden is an order of magnitude greater, trying to find your conclusion in hundreds of lines of text. After all, your initial line: > B…

[flagged]

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#170

Post by [deleted] »

Grimburger wrote: post #102
disillusioned wrote: post #17

Heh. Just got done writing (by hand!) a Principles of AI Use document for my (ironically) AI enablement firm, the first of which is: Write as yourself. You’re being paid for your expertise and insights. Communicate them directly to us. Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else, and worse, risks skipping that step for your…

Am I the only one suspicious of your comment? > Write as yourself. Unless it's your first day on HN (it's not 2008 account), most people use paragraphs and sentences longer than 2-5 words. Something like "You, directly." in the middle of all that has a certain vibe to it. > Copying and pasting Claude responses... directly shifts the burden of comprehension Most definitely. The problem is we live in a world where peop…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN