171–180 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. Same thing did happen to many work places. People at all levels proxy questions through LLMs and don't even bother to read/trim/edit the response. Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill.
That's why I tell my Claude to keep its responses short :V
Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. It's definitely become a game of just spam claude for answers with zero understanding or care for how anything actually works. That's fine to get things done and fine for a lot of side projects, but it definitely ruins the joy that people have in understanding systems and working with intellectuals.
> Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. Same thing did happen to many work places. People at all levels proxy questions through LLMs and don't even bother to read/trim/edit the response. Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You completely misunderstood the point. In no way do I mean that someone has to suffer for someone else to thrive. We could (and should) all thrive and have our needs met. I’m just saying the term is relative, like “tall” and “short”. If we were all the same height, no one would be tall or short, we’d just be. If we all had the same amount of money, no one would be rich or poor.
An economy isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth doesn't just pop into existence when someone in the government clicks a button on a screen. Money is created that way, but wealth isn't. It has to be created by creating something that someone else values enough to pay for willingly. No one has to lose anything, in the sense that no one has to give up more than they think the product or service is worth to them. In your exampl…
For the third time, that is not the argument. Read what I wrote and try to steal man a bit. Get your preconceived argument out of your head and understand we are in agreement. The difference between wealth and money isn’t in question, that is something you just added to the argument and decided with zero basis that I disagree.
The fact that so many people jump to conclusions and immediately dunk on others who agree with them is what bums me out.
What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill. Wasn't it always?
Was also a power signal, often demonstrated by execs who send three or four word replies to everything, often also in lower case with no punctuation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just this morning I had a senior manager say to me "I was trying to do someone else's job and give them all the info so they can review it as I have no knowledge" in response to me asking for them to please filter the Claude word salad using the meat proxy. I'm pretty tired of having to do the job of filtering the low-effort copy-paste walls of text
Similar to sending a "Let Me Google That For You" except somehow because it was an LLM not Google, they've forgotten it's more insulting than helpful, and aren't even in on the joke they themselves are making.
And while I generally believe we should be pro-social in our communications both with each other as software engineers and with others who don't know what we know, I think it's also fair game to point out that the thing being asked of you is commonly available knowledge. Google may suck as my sibling comment points out, and I agree, but filtering good info from info dumps, be that Claude or Google search, is a life skill that's more critical now than ever. And if you work in tech, really at any level, you know how to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An economy isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth doesn't just pop into existence when someone in the government clicks a button on a screen. Money is created that way, but wealth isn't. It has to be created by creating something that someone else values enough to pay for willingly. No one has to lose anything, in the sense that no one has to give up more than they think the product or service is worth to them. In your exampl…
> No one has to lose anything For the third time, that is not the argument . Read what I wrote and try to steal man a bit. Get your preconceived argument out of your head and understand we are in agreement. The difference between wealth and money isn’t in question, that is something you just added to the argument and decided with zero basis that I disagree. The fact that so many people jump to conclusions and immedia…
All I know is what you wrote, sorry. Same shit we could all read on Reddit: "If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich)."
If you frequently find yourself misunderstood in this way, work on expressing yourself more clearly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. Same thing did happen to many work places. People at all levels proxy questions through LLMs and don't even bother to read/trim/edit the response. Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill.
I think a lot of workplaces would do well to ban LLM-based replies in certain spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill. Wasn't it always?
I agree, anecdotally I've always noticed a huge amount of my peers lacked professional communication skills even pre-LLMs. A lot of people get this idea that "more verbosity = better" instead of optimizing for conciseness and information-density. I largely blame minimum word-count essays from school assignments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill. Wasn't it always?
Depends. A lot of the 1-2 sentence rapid responders from my past jobs weren’t really understanding the problem. They were virtue signaling that they were confident, fast to respond, and understood immediately (without elaborating) It’s easy to send a pithy response that suggests experience and understanding without having either. Think of a middle manager spouting pithy buzzword laden cliches confidently in response…