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

331–340 of 632 posts

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#331

Post by throwatdem12311 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #280
throwatdem12311 wrote: post #257

Had an offshore dev respond to me with copy pasted Claude response for the first time the other day. My reaction was of immediate visceral disgust. I can say in no uncertain terms that I do not care if your English is completely broken. I prefer that over AI slop. You will not improve your writing and language proficiency if you do not practice them! If you do not care about your language proficiency then you have ze…

The "good" news is you won't have to deal with this much longer. Claude, which this person basically admitted through their behavior, will replace 99% of the offshore devs in the next couple years. Then you won't have to get the ick from talking to them and they can go back to having no real economic prospects in a 3rd world country, and most likely lose the social and economic standing they had from having a good jo…

I know what people from their country think of the people from mine so I won’t be losing sleep over it.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#332

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. The underlying problem here is that communication is hard; especially if it's not face to face. People can't read your mind o…

If you work for a company of more than 1 person, then helping and developing and mentoring your colleagues is part of your job, and a more important one than telling them to rtfm so you can spend those few minutes getting your own thing done.

A company isn't just a bunch of people isolating themselves and doing their best to not talk to each other.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#333

Post by DonHopkins »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #81
Nition wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's obvious enough on its own, but I'll add that Pangram also thinks it's 100% fully AI generated. Hypocritical to say the least, given the message.

Pangram sucks

Pangram sucks as much as humans who think they're perfect llm generated text detectors, too.

As qarl2 wrote below:

>See how perverse this "I hate the way AI sounds" thing is?

>In the end everyone accusing everyone of being AI.

Which — as we all know — was trained on how humans write.

If it's not one thing, it's another...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k59d-xMvooA&t=205s

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#335

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

ako wrote: post #313
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…

If the response of AI is sufficient, why would i retype it in my own words? Just a waste of time. Most of what i have AI generate is based on my words and input anyways. I'll often write a draft note, and then have AI generate multiple formats, e.g., technical wording, marketing wording, management wording. Almost like taking raw content and using AI to rephrase it for specific channels.

if the response of AI is sufficient to do your job, why do you have a job?

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#336

Post by dec0dedab0de »

If I spent an hour or two going back and forth with an LLM, I will write my understanding of the issue, and what I think it means for us. Then at the end I'll put "This is what [llm name] said:" and paste in the detailed ai summary at the end. I think that is the most honest, and effective way to do it.

Before an LLM, I would have worked for much longer, then written the same short description, but without the detailed summary at the end. The llm output is really just extra clarifying info I never would have bothered to do on my own. By clearly marking it, I give people the option to skip it and just trust me.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#337

Post by jorisw »

salawat wrote: post #166
jorisw wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comp…

> So I guess everyone had better just settle in and get used to some serious profound disrespect

Nope. Because the individual end user still and already has a choice. A choice to write an email (or whatever) on their own. Be it supported by AI research or whathaveyou, or not.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#340

Post by maxverse »

ltononro wrote: post #317

Well not sure if I agree fully. On one hand it does make a lot of sense to process and answer w/ your own words. But, sometimes if what the agent says make sense and you just want to handoff findings that is also fine - I legit don't feel the need to be super strict. In startup environment where people are more chill about this, this seems totally fine. It would be more frustrating in a corp/executive environment whe…

I think a lot about a mismatch of effort these days. Here's an extreme example: I spend an hour drafting a doc outlining our engineering strategy for the next few quarters (or if we're in a startup, maybe writing up my product vision.) I share it with you to get feedback and comments. If you plug it into Claude and send me back an AI-formatted list, with sections like "the real insight (read this first)", we have very different ideas about where our value comes from and what deserves our effort, even though on paper I drafted a doc and you reviewed/expanded it.

I think it's fine to provide AI input if you disclose it, in which case you could encourage me to just plug it into Claude myself next time.

And I agree there's gray area: the AI output might be the result of a long conversation, shaped by careful prompting and context and guidance. The writing is AI generated, but the thinking is human.

Post reply on HN