11–20 of 93 posts
WHY on earth did the author of the CVE feel the need to feed the description text through an LLm? I get dizzy when I see this AI slop style. I would rather just read the original prompt that went in instead of verbosified "it's not X, it's **Y**!" slop.
you can use chatgpt to reverse the prompt
WHY on earth did the author of the CVE feel the need to feed the description text through an LLm? I get dizzy when I see this AI slop style. I would rather just read the original prompt that went in instead of verbosified "it's not X, it's **Y**!" slop.
you can use chatgpt to reverse the prompt
WHY on earth did the author of the CVE feel the need to feed the description text through an LLm? I get dizzy when I see this AI slop style. I would rather just read the original prompt that went in instead of verbosified "it's not X, it's **Y**!" slop.
> WHY on earth did the author of the CVE feel the need to feed the description text through an LLm? Not everyone speaks English natively. Not everyone has taste when it comes to written English.
If you can't be bothered to have a human write literally a handful of lines of text, what else can't you be bothered to do? Why should I trust that your CVE even exists at all - let alone is indeed "critical" and worth ruining Christmas over?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WHY on earth did the author of the CVE feel the need to feed the description text through an LLm? Not everyone speaks English natively. Not everyone has taste when it comes to written English.
I would rather read succinct English written by a non-native speaker filled with broken grammar than overly verbose but well-spelled AI slop. Heck, just share the prompt itself! If you can't be bothered to have a human write literally a handful of lines of text, what else can't you be bothered to do? Why should I trust that your CVE even exists at all - let alone is indeed "critical" and worth ruining Christmas over?
More importantly though, the sheer amount of this complaint on HN has become a great reason not to show up.
The best part about this is that you know the type of people/companies using langchain are likely the type that are not going to patch this in a timely manner.
Can you elaborate? Fairly new to langchain, but didn't realize it had any sort of stereotypical type of user.
I've talked to many people who regret building on top of it but they're in too deep.
I think you may come to the same conclusions over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather read succinct English written by a non-native speaker filled with broken grammar than overly verbose but well-spelled AI slop. Heck, just share the prompt itself! If you can't be bothered to have a human write literally a handful of lines of text, what else can't you be bothered to do? Why should I trust that your CVE even exists at all - let alone is indeed "critical" and worth ruining Christmas over?
I prefer reading the LLM output for accessibility reasons. More importantly though, the sheer amount of this complaint on HN has become a great reason not to show up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? Fairly new to langchain, but didn't realize it had any sort of stereotypical type of user.
I am not sure what's the stereotype, but I tried using langchain and realised most of the functionality actually adds more code to use than simply writing my own direct API LLM calls. Overall I felt like it solves a problem doesn't exist, and I've been happily sending direct API calls for years to LLMs without issues.
I think structured output with schema validation mostly replaces the need for complex prompt frameworks. I do look at the LC source from time to time because they do have good prompts backed into the framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather read succinct English written by a non-native speaker filled with broken grammar than overly verbose but well-spelled AI slop. Heck, just share the prompt itself! If you can't be bothered to have a human write literally a handful of lines of text, what else can't you be bothered to do? Why should I trust that your CVE even exists at all - let alone is indeed "critical" and worth ruining Christmas over?
I prefer reading the LLM output for accessibility reasons. More importantly though, the sheer amount of this complaint on HN has become a great reason not to show up.
And that's completely fine! If you prefer to read CVEs that way, nobody is going to stop you from piping all CVE descriptions you're interested in through a LLM.
However, having it processed by a LLM is essentially a one-way operation. If some people prefer the original and some others prefer the LLM output, the obvious move is to share the original with the world and have LLM-preferring readers do the processing on their end. That way everyone is happy with the format they get to read. Sounds like a win-win, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? Fairly new to langchain, but didn't realize it had any sort of stereotypical type of user.
No dig at you, but I take the average langchain user as one who is either a) using it because their C-suite heard about at some AI conference and had it foisted upon them or b) does not care about software quality in general. I've talked to many people who regret building on top of it but they're in too deep. I think you may come to the same conclusions over time.