181–190 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a tough call but I'm not sure if physicist code or electronic engineer code is more frightening.
As an EE, I can say that code written by EEs might be frightening, but electronics built by coders is often shocking.
I work at an intersection of tech, applied research, and science. Something I’ve noticed in collaboration that does occur is an increased confidence in people outside their domains to say things with conviction. I have people who have limited experience with software pushing out layers and layers of abstracted code that’s fairly sophisticated but often misguided in intent who will say what they’re doing is correct, w…
There are also the guys who are just blatantly meat proxies for Claude. You send them a message, and you get back a response that's all Claude (and disorganized and not really making sense to boot).
I've got one on an affiliated team and I basically don't want to collaborate with him at all anymore.
But you know, "AI is the future of work," and all that. Those guys get a pat on the head by higher-ups and probably think they're doing what they're supposed to.
I work at an intersection of tech, applied research, and science. Something I’ve noticed in collaboration that does occur is an increased confidence in people outside their domains to say things with conviction. I have people who have limited experience with software pushing out layers and layers of abstracted code that’s fairly sophisticated but often misguided in intent who will say what they’re doing is correct, w…
What do you suggest these people do instead? I’ve been frustrated by this recently: I pivoted to a new subfield and am working on stuff that I would love to dive deep into and really learn what is going on so I can speak intelligently about the tradeoffs etc. But that would take a long time, and I have tasks that I should get done. So I have found myself working with a pretty vague understanding that, when pressed by…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So just dismissal via association or what was your point?
The absolute trolling that goes on here is related to the point. You are entirely capable of checking what I wrote but insist on trying to drag this out with straw men and misinterpretations. Of course people like you have a problem with AI since it will help everyone else move on and ignore you.
As for you complaining about straw men and misreadings etc, If you aren’t able to communicate clearly that’s a you problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suggest these people do instead? I’ve been frustrated by this recently: I pivoted to a new subfield and am working on stuff that I would love to dive deep into and really learn what is going on so I can speak intelligently about the tradeoffs etc. But that would take a long time, and I have tasks that I should get done. So I have found myself working with a pretty vague understanding that, when pressed by…
Read some books on the subject and within a year in this new domain you'll be much better. Did you forget your whole life before the last 3 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM tools tend confirm what you come to them with, be it unfounded conviction or doubt. I find them quite useless to tell me things I don't know, as verifying what they say shows that any non-trivial claims they make are usually oversimplified or plain wrong. Anything more than using them to just pointing me to media and literature is usually a waste of time.
That's interesting. Lately I have found the exact opposite to be true; the frontier models are quite disagreeable and require some convincing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like your sibling comment I saw this mainly with physics people doing data science: > Eventually you have to understand something. And part of that process is being wrong and annoying people. There is nothing more frustrating as a colleague than having a smart person walk in, insist you're all wrong, and then burn all the energy and goodwill in the organisation having to rebuild absolutely everything from the princip…
But there is a difference between not listening to experience and examining whether the resulting implementation/decisions based on the experience are actually valid. I doubt that someone smart (as you put it) would deliberately want things redone because they don't understand it, that's a trait borne of arrogance not intelligence. At least in my experience (as a physics grad), me and all my fellow grads are much mor…
You're actually doing the problem behavior right here: denying the validity of the experience of seeing exactly this happen, not as a one off, but repeatedly in completely separate situations and institutions.
> that's a trait borne of arrogance not intelligence.
I mean the problem is they're arrogant. The two aren't mutually exclusive, far from it.
I work at an intersection of tech, applied research, and science. Something I’ve noticed in collaboration that does occur is an increased confidence in people outside their domains to say things with conviction. I have people who have limited experience with software pushing out layers and layers of abstracted code that’s fairly sophisticated but often misguided in intent who will say what they’re doing is correct, w…
What do you suggest these people do instead? I’ve been frustrated by this recently: I pivoted to a new subfield and am working on stuff that I would love to dive deep into and really learn what is going on so I can speak intelligently about the tradeoffs etc. But that would take a long time, and I have tasks that I should get done. So I have found myself working with a pretty vague understanding that, when pressed by…
I've also had success just asking claude to write documentation on a system or subsystem or module, etc, and reading that. I then sometimes have it turn that into an svg diagram or something visual that often helps understand things. That domain-specific knowledge is hard to gain though, so not a silver bullet by any stretch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted you to be wrong, and to be able to make this an example of us over-reacting to certain trigger words created by AI, but unfortunately I just scanned the first couple paragraphs with pangram and it reported 100% AI, so you're probably correct. I get a funny feeling in my stomach over the idea that common and effective means of communication (i.e. it's not X it's Y) have become faux pas to use because of AI. I…
All these "is this AI" checkers should be banned, as they never can reach 100% accuracy.
Which is ironic since they are a tool folks are trusting blindly supposedly used to argue against tool use with blind trust.
This article is written by an LLM, by the way. ("Quietly" is... as Claude might put it... "often the quiet tell".)
Is "quietly" an LLM tell? It was always certainly a human writer trope commonly seen in journalism. Though I guess it does appear five times in the body of the post, and a human writer would probably not go that far with it.