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

I'm becoming AI-blind

cymerys.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 533 posts

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#401

Post by ilitirit »

I wrote about this recently on one of our company's IT channels. I called it "slop-fatigue". I - and others - have started to get noticeably dismissive of content that appears to be written by an LLM. The whole thing was a piece about the ironies of software development in the world of LLMs. This part spoke about how easy it is to generate docs now, but it's also even easier to dismiss it. This contributed to cognitive-debt, because humans didn't write the docs, and other humans tend to dismiss the content. I saw a recent reaction to this on HN as `ai;dr`. That's almost exactly how I feel about it.

Margaret Storey's recent piece on Cognitive Debt: https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3807966

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#402

Post by user43928 »

mixermachine wrote: post #396

I need to support integrators for a mobile app SDK. Bank stuff. We have one integrator which consistently uses a truly bad AI. My brain skips after two sentences already. There are always +9 questions what should just be 2 max. Redundant info is requested (e.g. please provide a change history of this function and if it will be deprecated) and everything is just unbelievably verbose. 90% of questions we get from them…

Why not just copy paste a reply from your own agent?

If they can't bother to come up with their own question, I wouldn't spend my time on the answer either.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#403

Post by [deleted] »

digikar99 wrote: post #331
DoctorOetker wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection. But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. I don't see any fundamental difference in functionality between human intellectual contributions vs performant ML ones (LLM or otherwise). W…

Probability is just one way to model uncertainty. While I understand the brain encodes uncertainty, I don't think probability is a good enough model of what it's doing. Secondly, if you think verifying a proof in mathematics, reasoning within (and not about) a formal system, or following the chain of a computer program that is already written is just doing token-based probabilistic predictions, I don't know what to s…

[deleted]

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#404

Post by tripzilch »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #219
TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can…

> ... including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection. But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. I don't see any fundamental difference in functionality between human intellectual contributions vs performant ML ones (LLM or otherwise). W…

> But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier.

This is only a very very small part of what human mathematicians actually do. This is just a lack of imagination and/or self awareness on your part.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#405

Post by jaccola »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #390
jaccola wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low n, time bound, not reproduced. And look at their example conversations… And people forget that sometimes humans message twice. An LLM can only respond. So it immediately fails here in a true Turing test. (You could loop the LLM but then I expect even more immediately obvious bot behaviour).

> Low n Are you serious? From the paper: > We recruited 126 participants from the UCSD psychology undergraduate subject pool and 158 participants from Prolific (Prolific, 2025). Each human participated in 8 rounds. > time bound The time bound of 5 minutes was suggested by Turing himself in his original paper. > not reproduced It was reproduced across two populations within the paper . > And look at their example conv…

A paper can’t reproduce its self. And he didn’t formulate the test with a 5 minute bound he just predicted that by the year 2000 that within 5 minutes an average interrogator would have a sub 70% chance of guessing correctly.

And it’s all irrelevant. If one human on earth can consistently get it right then it hasn’t been passed since clearly that human can somehow determine between them (whereas no one would ever be able to determine between a true “human intelligence” by definition).

And as it stands almost everyone could tell between them when allowed to discuss whatever they want for any length of time.

The fact these researchers have to keep adding bounds shows it hasn’t been passed. If we are arguing over technicalities maybe it isn’t as obviously intelligent as claimed!

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#406

Post by BoredomIsFun »

ojo-rojo wrote: post #368
ddj231 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this line of reasoning quite a bit and it’s a strange one to me. The arguer reduces the sheer complexity of human intelligence and language by saying “we are just running statistical models in our brains” and by doing so makes the leap that Llms are intelligent. It’s an incredible simplification of the human person, who has a deep inner life, a soul, desires, and a will. I don’t think the aversion to llms as in…

You mention LLMs are dead and don't have the complexity or inner life that people do. Is your opinion that these kinds of things are not possible for AI in general, or that these things might be possible but we're just not there yet with modern LLMs? You mentioned LLMs don't have souls, desire, or a will. I imagine those latter two can be engineered, no?

> I imagine those latter two can be engineered, no?

Ultimately yes, but not in modern AI systems.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#407

Post by tripzilch »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #281
mik1998 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New and interesting mathematics is done by inventing new definitions and fields, not just combining old theorems to prove new ones.

It's not that different, when a human proposes a better definition vis-a-vis a competing one for example, they would defend this by certain desiderata. Often a mathematician or physicist will use their intuition to speed up the naive brute force of candidate well formed formula variations so that the desired properties emerge, postulating the existence of an intersection on multiple desiderata can in itself be viewed…

You're conflating a discussion about current LLM capabilities with your fantasies about nonexistent future AI. LLMs act nothing like this, and the small example you're giving is only a small part of the things that LLMs can't do.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#408

Post by user43928 »

tingletech wrote: post #86

In high school, a teacher gave me a copy of "How To Read Better And Faster" which teaches you speed reading. This came in very handy in college. I find that when I try to speed read modern human writing, there are often errors (like missing or misused words) or awkward expressions that I do have to slow down and think harder a lot to really parse it. With AI writing, it's sort of self redundant and the information de…

I am wondering if working with agentic AI for 500+ hours built up skills for this.

While I would feel rusty when handwriting code, working with either Codex or Claude I have lots of practice.

I can probably tell at a glance where output is intermediate while it's still running tools and where the summary starts.

Then I have to recall the context of the conversation, parse the summary, see if there is anything unexpected that popped up. Make a call for whether I need to ask it for clarifications, and what I need to test to verify the change.

Assessing quickly what is pointless yapping and where the information I need is might be a learned skill. If one tries to read and understand every word Claude says, I am not surprised that people are not having a good time.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#409

Post by tripzilch »

ojo-rojo wrote: post #368
ddj231 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this line of reasoning quite a bit and it’s a strange one to me. The arguer reduces the sheer complexity of human intelligence and language by saying “we are just running statistical models in our brains” and by doing so makes the leap that Llms are intelligent. It’s an incredible simplification of the human person, who has a deep inner life, a soul, desires, and a will. I don’t think the aversion to llms as in…

You mention LLMs are dead and don't have the complexity or inner life that people do. Is your opinion that these kinds of things are not possible for AI in general, or that these things might be possible but we're just not there yet with modern LLMs? You mentioned LLMs don't have souls, desire, or a will. I imagine those latter two can be engineered, no?

Well they're language models. You can't capture the human experience in language. Simple as that.

> Is your opinion that these kinds of things are not possible for AI in general, or that these things might be possible but we're just not there yet with modern LLMs?

I used to be on the side of "we're just not there yet [with AI in general]", but after seeing people's response to an algorithm optimized to tickle just their language instinct, I'm actually a little bit more on the fence about it.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#410

Post by illwrks »

davidgh wrote: post #43

My son is currently learning Romanian and I was trying to help him with verbs. I don’t know Romanian but recalled when learning a foreign language for the first time it really helped me to break down how a verb form or tense worked in English, then learn the equivalent in the new language. So I wanted to make some charts and pages that he could use as learning resources. I used Claude to help. I don’t know how to qui…

Uncanny valley.
Post reply on HN