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

461–470 of 632 posts

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#461

Post by joaohaas »

khaosdoctor wrote: post #140
Aerolfos wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deeply ironic that it sure looks like taking the original post, pasting it to an AI with the message "make this angrier" and then simply copy-pasting the output back to the website. In direct violation of their own (supposed) principles. And the result isn't even very angry at all. It's like mildly peeved internal company communication (also in direct violation of "don't send this to your manager")

I actually wrote it all myself... The original version was the angrier one only, but people complained that it was too angry, so I tried to smooth it out with another version people could use.

The angry one is just as bad IMO.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#462

Post by andrewflnr »

the_af wrote: post #413
jillesvangurp wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I worked in a big multinational at the time ;-). So, yes. Mostly my direct managers were alright. Some were excellent even. But organizational politics and learning to read between the lines is part of working inside of big organizations. > You get a short reply that is a reply on a 1 sentence you wrote, twisted upside down ignoring com…

> Usually a clear sign that you are not communicating effectively Agreed. I learned that in emails, a multi-paragraph, multi-item text means the recipient will randomly reply to only one of the points (often the least important one). So an effective email will make a single point, in as brief a manner as possible.

This defines "communicating effectively" in a way that it can't possibly cover a complex topic. Sometimes you need to communicate complex topics, so this definition is a failure. The problem remains that people refuse to do the reading required for their job.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#463

Post by bayindirh »

duskdozer wrote: post #428
nchmy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad that this has happened, but having knowledge/skill doesn't mean you have wisdom, integrity, discernment, etc... Those are an entirely different plane of understanding, and are what guard against our worst impulses and temptations. Unfortunately there isn't much focus on these things anymore (and, in fact, they're often denigrated and attacked). The result that you've observed is inevitable. I genuinely worry…

To a degree I can't even blame them. It seems we as a society largely reward those who cheat, steal, and scam, and don't reward integrity and hard work the same way. So "why bother?" I can see it being. It doesn't end well, but none of the anti-intellectualism does.

Maybe I am an outlier, but I never looked to external affirmation as a guide or a goal for my actions.

I have a simple rule: Do whatever makes you sleep in peace with yourself. IOW, My only guiding principles are my own ethics and conscience. I don't care what others are doing. I also don't compete with others. I do what I do and own the consequences of my actions. I might not have a mansion or a fleet of luxury cars, but this is not what makes me happy, anyway.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#464

Post by pixl97 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #343
gwd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since people started using Claude now I get full context of everything… And I think this is where one key argument on the page itself I think fails: > The person on the other side has the same tools you do. Yes, the person on the other side has Claude; but in many cases, their Claude doesn't have the same context as my Claude. Saying, "This thing happened in an area of the code I don't have any expertise in. Below…

The problem is when all we get is the output, we don't know if their context is even valid. If they don't demonstrate any human understanding of their message content, we can't really take that on faith. Especially once we've got them copy pasting blindly in the past.

Working in support most of my life has shown me the vast majority of customer context is invalid when written by humans.

People don't read error messages. They'll include exactly zero context in their tickets. They outright lie. You can't take anything they say with good faith until you have a relationship with that individual and discern their competence.

I think some of this is a large amount of HN posters are working on software teams that have communicate pretty commonly, hence have a shared context. Once you start getting outside of that shared context knowing what information to exchange gets vastly more difficult for humans.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#465

Post by john_strinlai »

majewsky wrote: post #450
thesuitonym wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's an emergency, you should call 911, or your country's equivalent. If that is not appropriate, then it's not an emergency.

> Hello 911, our auth service is down following a malformed config deployment. "Emergency" is not the same as "emergency services".

as i've gotten older, i've realized that an auth service being down does not fit my definition of emergency.

which is the point the parent commenter was making, if im not mistaken.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#466

Post by echelon »

wpietri wrote: post #459
throwaway98797 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s passive aggressive. ultimately it’s better to not inform and start ignoring these people. let natural selection work.

Natural selection is demonstrably not working. It only takes one look at a newspaper to see that thoughtlessness and stupidity are doing better than ever. I think the internet is pretty great, but it's a major factor in that rise in at least 3 ways: * Previously, an important check on fools was social consequences. Now they have an endless supply of people to bother. Spammers were the first to exploit that, but now i…

Natural selection selects for reproductive fitness, not intelligence.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#467

Post by Alien1Being »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #429
setgree wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get questions about academic papers I've written from non-academics sometimes. It's fun, I like that people are reading. However, some of them are clearly written by AI. I typically answer anyway, but on my most recent, I appended at the end: > P.S. I intuit, and Pangram agrees, that this last email was AI-generated (and apparently so was the first one, now that I checked). As general career advice, I wish to obser…

it’s passive aggressive. ultimately it’s better to not inform and start ignoring these people. let natural selection work.

Mindlessly calling things passive aggressive, is nearly as bad as pasting AI slop. Start working on your language skills.

And yes, this comment is passive aggressive.

See the difference?

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#468

Post by mattacular »

The problem to me is, if people slowed down enough to carefully review and also rewrite model output in their own words (even if we're not counting code output), then what you have is a tool that probably makes you slower overall instead of much faster. I don't think that is a bad idea per se, but it is generally the opposite of how you're expected to perform with AI tools.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#469

Post by jimmaswell »

the_af wrote: post #413
jillesvangurp wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I worked in a big multinational at the time ;-). So, yes. Mostly my direct managers were alright. Some were excellent even. But organizational politics and learning to read between the lines is part of working inside of big organizations. > You get a short reply that is a reply on a 1 sentence you wrote, twisted upside down ignoring com…

> Usually a clear sign that you are not communicating effectively Agreed. I learned that in emails, a multi-paragraph, multi-item text means the recipient will randomly reply to only one of the points (often the least important one). So an effective email will make a single point, in as brief a manner as possible.

I wish this were simply a fireable offense and we were expected to read. These kind of people who act like reading 3 paragraphs is being asked to swallow glass make me blindingly mad. They should be unemployed.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#470

Post by mh- »

echelon wrote: post #466
wpietri wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural selection is demonstrably not working. It only takes one look at a newspaper to see that thoughtlessness and stupidity are doing better than ever. I think the internet is pretty great, but it's a major factor in that rise in at least 3 ways: * Previously, an important check on fools was social consequences. Now they have an endless supply of people to bother. Spammers were the first to exploit that, but now i…

Natural selection selects for reproductive fitness, not intelligence.

People forget this far too often.
Post reply on HN