Live data from Hacker News

Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

bcantrill.dtrace.org

341–350 of 454 posts

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#341
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no subtext to bigstrat2003's argument, other than "I'm wrong, and I don't care." If you give persistent, repeatable instructions to a computer, you are programming it. If you disagree, you are gatekeeping. It's that simple. The most popular programming languages in 2030 will, in fact, be English and Mandarin. Deal with it and get over it. ---------------- Edit, to bcrosby95: Look up the etymology of the word…

> The most popular programming languages in 2030 will, in fact, be English and Mandarin. Deal with it and get over it. What are you willing to bet?

I'm game. Say $1000, donated to a charity of the winner's choice? How do you want to set the bet up, and how do you think it should be decided?

To be precise: I will bet that high-level programming languages won't be any less popular as a whole, but the vast majority of code will be written by AI rather than humans, working from specs written in natural language or something very close to it.

What we call "source code" today will be thought of as "object code" by 2030. Something that occasionally needs to be inspected by humans, but rarely authored directly. Anyone not writing code this way had better be doing it as a hobby, because almost no one will pay for it.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#342
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. LLMs for writing is like intellectual catfishing. You are presenting yourself one way in written form.. but that's not who you will ever be once someone has to actually have a conversation with you. And that's wrong.

I agree with the gist of your sentiment, but I struggle with how to reconcile it with my use of these tools. My use LLMs is precisely because I can never hope to express myself clearly. I have many fuzzy, disparate thoughts and it was a struggle to express them at all before this time in which I can do a long rambling voice transcription (absent of social pressures) and continue doing the same throughout the explorat…

A lot of the stuff you wrote about is not what most of us are talking about when we call it intellectual catfishing or say your intellectual fly is open. For example, I have few problems with people using LLMs in private for purely personal things. I still won't go ahead and recommend it, but it's a decision we can all make for ourselves. Also, writing an email to your city is something you could ask your assistant to do if you were super rich, and using the LLM to do it isn't that different, so I'm not going to judge you for that.

As a more nuanced case, someone could dictate a long rambling stream of thoughts full of contradictions to an LLM to transcribe and summarize, and then they could reflect on the summary and write the real thing themselves. That's like talking to someone about a subject and writing about it afterwards, and also not something I would really take issue with.

That's my partial answer to the cognitive prosthesis question: keep it off to the side as a tool to help you do the work. There are still many caveats here, and the more complex the demands you make of the LLM, the greater the risk of some kind of break down. For example, continuing the example in the previous paragraph, if I did have the rambling conversation with an actual person who helped me refine and clarify my thoughts, I have some kind of mental model for the dialogue partner that can help me correct for some biases. With an LLM, anything resembling a mental model I could have would be very far off the mark, so I would need to be aware that I can't treat its output the same way I would treat something written by a person.

(By the way, for myself I have a stricter rule: I would only use an LLM in a way that made me a better person independently of the LLM and not dependent on the LLM, and thus I don't use them at all. That's what I actually recommend, but I don't expect everyone to adopt that rule.)

My main problem with having the LLM just do your writing is that it's simply a misrepresentation. It's wrong to claim you wrote something unless you chose the words. I really empathize with the struggle of expressing oneself clearly, but there's just no getting around this. And to be clear this isn't something pedantic or just a technicality, since the act of formulating a thought in an actual human language with valid syntax does require a level of care and attention that simply is not there unless you do it yourself.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#343
post #293

I don’t want to read content written by AI. A feature I would like on LinkedIn would be a 100% verified human content flag for users. LinkedIn can then do the scans and flip that to false for any users it catches posting AI assisted content. Let me filter that out of the feed. If we don’t do something to maintain some standard of discourse, we lose intellectually and as a piece of our humanity. LinkedIn is the only s…

Under European law don't you have to mark AI generated content as such?

Is that self reported? Does it apply to content created by a U.S. based AI model? Posted on a U.S. website? Read by someone in the U.S.

I am not anticipating people self identifying slop.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs write better than most journalists. I used to think this, but now that I've been trying to use them to help with writing, it turns out they are not necessarily that great on the deeper level. The grammar and the surface style are impeccable, but they often struggle with continuity and carrying on a point or an argument.

I've come to trust their grammar corrections implicitly. So much that I've setup a "Fix Grammar" command with Obsidian Copilot that I'll just let it run on a whole chapter (YOLO mode): Proofread the following text for grammar, punctuation, and typos while strictly preserving the author's voice, pacing, and intentional stylistic choices (such as sentence fragments or character dialogue quirks). Rules: - Correct object…

Good writers break grammar rules when it helps convey a point, emphasize an idea, or just makes the writing more interesting. You are completely missing out on that.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because _someone_ has vetted the output of GCC. It’s used in flight-critical stuff. The closest thing we have to vetting LLMs is “whoa look, it escaped this sandbox, that’s prolly not great but it’s so cool!”

Sure, I manually test the output of the LLM. Manual testing is actually the main role for humans doing software engineering these days. I wouldn't use it for flight control software yet, at least not without careful review, but most software isn't exactly critical. At the same time, I wouldn't trust flight control software that was only reviewed by humans, since AI is so much better at debugging. We'll probably need…

> I wouldn't trust flight control software that was only reviewed by humans

So I assume you don’t fly? Or is it only software created after 2025 which must be reviewed by the All Knowing Entity?

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#347
post #14

I'm a bit skeptical of arguments of the form, "You should not use LLMs without disclosure because LLMs at bad at writing." My reasoning is: If LLMs get better at writing—which I think is extremely likely—will you switch positions and say that now using LLMs without disclosure is A-OK? Surely some people are willing to bite that bullet and say yes. But for most people, my guess is that the answer will remain no. Thus,…

I agree. LLM writing is atrocious, but people also want LLM writing to be atrocious in many cases, because they don’t like LLMs. The worst of this is with image/video AI models, where the results today, although still very imperfect, some people will still pretend like it’s awful and the worst thing they’ve ever seen. They refuse to admit the technology is at all impressive or making progress because they don’t like…

I agree that there can be a tendency to conflate the two things: how advanced the technology is, and how aesthetically pleasing what it produces is. It's also important to remember that we're not obligated to like something just because it's "pretty" or has high aesthetic value in some abstract sense.

In other words, the three questions of:

- is the technology good?

- does it produce aesthetically good outputs?

- do I like it and want to engage with it?

are all pretty independent.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compilers like GCC are deterministic and the source code already fully defines the behavior. LLMs are non-deterministic and will accept ambiguity, filling in details where you haven’t. These sorts of comparisons aren’t really fair. In the case of writing, it’s like hiring someone to write a book for you vs. hiring someone to translate a book you wrote into another language. In the first case, you didn’t really define…

Sure, but I don't know what GCC's behavior is, and I don't vet behavior differences between compiler upgrades. As long as the output works, why does it matter that the black box is deterministic?

It doesn’t matter how exactly GCC works, as long as the behavior is deterministic and consistent (GCC is likely maintaining backwards compatibility between versions, so the behavior of your code likely hasn’t changed). In that case, you can reason about the behavior you need and write your code appropriately.

In the case of LLMs, the behavior is non-deterministic and inconsistent. If I don’t explain how handle an edge case or give a performance constraint, the LLM will still produce code and may do so in different ways, handling edge cases differently and with different performance characteristics. I can’t reason about how the LLM will fill in those gaps, it’s “random.”

Maybe you don’t care about how the LLM handles those edge cases or handles performance, but that’s different than a deterministic abstraction whose implementation details you don’t care about, but whose logic and performance is deterministic and consistent

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#349

What baffles me, isn't just that people don't see the low quality writing themselves, but that they must also be able to identify other's shit "LLM writings" right? And realize how what they put out sounds exactly the same? Or did people completely stop reading what they've "wrote" before hitting that magical submit button?

People like this generally don't read, for pleasure or edification. Their posts are advertising, designed to work by repetition. They're not necessarily looking to persuade smart people; they're going after the same sort of people who want to fix problems with this one weird trick (doctors hate him!).

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#350
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wonder if long form writing will go the way of code. You and the AI agree on an outline or other high level representation, then the LLM expands it into a document. What use is that? I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know. Who or what is the audience for that sort of long form writing? If it's a human, why would they read it? They'd just give it to an LLM and get the salient points back. If the aud…

A lot of corporate documentation exists solely to measure if people are working or not. That's why there's so many meetings in white collar companies. Because people can't understand what is going on at those documents so they just need to "align". LLMs are amazing at generating this useless documentation that goes absolutely nowhere.

> A lot of corporate documentation exists solely to measure if people are working or not.

That's already available today. We don't have to perfect LLM writing.

Post reply on HN