31–40 of 66 posts
We are all stochastic parrots. Currently, millions of years of evolutionary pressure have produced a better algorithm than a few years of optimization pressure but we’ll see how long that remains true!
You are not just a stochastic parrot. Your speech is not just "next likely word", but a product of your internal model of the world.
You won't be able to choose at some point, and you probably already read plenty of AI generated stuff, it's a survivorship bias. I have a SKILL that emulates how my supervisor prefers his answers and papers, he used to get triggered by generated stuff, but now it just writes in a style he likes which I got from a bunch of his papers and everything goes smoother. If you are bottlenecking someone they will just do the…
I think the dev holdouts will have to give in on the PR reviews. They catch things and you are delivering less secure software to real people if the luddite desires trump real results for the sake of some false purity test.
Here's an AI-generated pull request I made, but you wouldn't know because there's no slop:
https://github.com/numtide/devshell/commit/a67c0f87b63bcbdbd...
It got merged by someone who is too busy to respond to personal emails.
"Don't waste my precious attention" is only getting more real.
Do those people feel important by objecting on those tools? Like they are above others?
I still don't understand given the advancement in those models (both closed and open source) one could have such a reductionist view on them. And my only guess is that they derive the feeling of importance through the act of rebellion. Almost like a teenage rebelling against others.
But it doesn't take much to see this tech is here to stay.
> You cannot assume anything about generated code. Maybe it was simply hallucinated and, by chance, it compiled. This is, ironically, similar to my mom's anti-mental-healthcare argument that the system producing a good outcome is not evidence that the process is correct. It's everyone's choice what stances they take, and if being utterly opposed to any kind of AI interaction is their's, that's their choice, but just…
I'm praying that you're not a developer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm praying that you're not a developer
Worse, I'm someone who's been reviewing code for a long time. And it's not much different now than it was before.
And in any case, if the code you had experience with (and produced?) before AIs was stack overflow answers pasted together, it's not surprising that you don't see any worsening.
Btw, if your idea of LLMs is of something doing "mathematical approximation", you have some reading to do; and I won't say what I consider pretentious BS.
I'm very sorry to say it, but even reading LLM-slop is less tiresome, then reading yet another anti-AI slop article. It's a pretty low bar. I could find 10 anti-AI posts on HN and they all will contain points from a very narrow pool of anti-AI takes. I mean, how many more times do you need to repeat them? > stochastic algorithms trained to produce tons of "average," non-human content As we can see, humans are also qu…
Exactly! It's not as if humans are special (though LLM's certainly are). Humans, they've been the same for thousands of years, same old stories (there's like only 7 archetypal stories they've ever come up with). Same old poems, love this, romance that blah blah blah!
We certainly don't need yet another anti-AI article, same as all the others. Though as it's written entirely by a human who must have thought about every word, certainly poles apart from an LLM generated article one, I'll give him credit for making the effort.
I'm very sorry to say it, but even reading LLM-slop is less tiresome, then reading yet another anti-AI slop article. It's a pretty low bar. I could find 10 anti-AI posts on HN and they all will contain points from a very narrow pool of anti-AI takes. I mean, how many more times do you need to repeat them? > stochastic algorithms trained to produce tons of "average," non-human content As we can see, humans are also qu…