Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human Routers of Machine Words

borretti.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#11

Post by zetalyrae »

SeriousM wrote: post #6

> A “thinker” who doesn’t write, who skips the step of “merely” synthesizing their vague thoughts into prose, is not thinking. And then these people give their noise to the AI. OP is quite good with words and has a high standard and world view. The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas is probably because they have no other way communicate otherwise. It's a medium to pack the idea into "something" that rep…

> The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas is probably because they have no other way communicate otherwise.

Isn't this a bit circular? They're not communicating to the AI through a BCI.

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#12

Post by bxk76 »

Animats wrote: post #3

> Anyone can imagine a programing language that is as fast as C and as dynamic as Lisp, but when you sit down and think through what those goals entail, you realize the design becomes contradictory. Ignoring the usual LLM rant, that's an interesting observation. Those conflicting goals reflect a problem that comes up quite often - the conflict between efficient volume production and flexibility. It's solvable for pro…

As the buddhists have pointed out for thousands of years nothing is permanent. Attachment to things that are ever changing is the path to suffering.

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#13

Post by zetalyrae »

Foxhuls wrote: post #4

This just seems weirdly similar to Plato's comments on writing: "And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, bu…

But writing, calculators, search engines etc. are specific tools, you drop a skill to gain effectiveness in another. While AI is a general tool whose builders intend it to be able to perform all cognitive work. Past a certain point, what is left of the human?

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#14

Post by jrmg »

This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…)

The argument that communicating an idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels counterintuitive, but it’s really true.

Whether it’s debugging, ‘big’ writing, or even down to the scale of a tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I’ve often had the experience of starting to explain a process or opinion and only then discovering that it’s inconsistent or even indefensible.

I suspect (I hope!) that this is something everyone can empathize with.

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#15

Post by recursive-call »

jrmg wrote: post #10
SeriousM wrote: post #6

> A “thinker” who doesn’t write, who skips the step of “merely” synthesizing their vague thoughts into prose, is not thinking. And then these people give their noise to the AI. OP is quite good with words and has a high standard and world view. The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas is probably because they have no other way communicate otherwise. It's a medium to pack the idea into "something" that rep…

The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas is probably because they have no other way communicate otherwise. What?! This is nonsense. You’re really making the argument that most people getting LLMs to write for them just couldn’t communicate in any way five years ago?

The five-years-ago internet was certainly full of incoherently expressed ideas (and still is now). For some people AI is just spellcheck on the sentence/paragraph level.

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#16

Post by zetalyrae »

jrmg wrote: post #14

This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…) The argument that communicating an idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels counterintuitive, but it’s really true. Whether it’s debugging, ‘big’ writing, or even down to the scale of a tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I’ve often had the experience of starting to explain a p…

> This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…)

We have reached the point where you have college professors who defend[0] using AI to write scientific papers (in a seemingly AI-written tweet). Everywhere I go online, I see spam written with the exact same voice. Scientific journals and literary magazines are inundated with AI-written submissions. Software projects have shut contributions because maintainers are tired of reading AI-written slop pull requests.

What's the right tone to take here? "Please stop defecting"? "I wish you would kindly stop ruining the commons"? I don't know. Maybe, if we raise the reputational cost of slop, we get less of it.

[0]: https://x.com/harryjwang/status/2062710375884148945

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#17

Post by nelsonfigueroa »

jrmg wrote: post #14

This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…) The argument that communicating an idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels counterintuitive, but it’s really true. Whether it’s debugging, ‘big’ writing, or even down to the scale of a tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I’ve often had the experience of starting to explain a p…

The author doesn't come across as arrogant to me, more like frustrated. The tone is certainly not for everyone but I enjoyed it. And I agree that it's a good essay!

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#18

Post by NateEag »

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #5

> ... I feel contempt for the author, because if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass. Let’s not mince words here. Someone who is so eager to replace themselves, that they would have a machine write in their stead, when the machine can’t even write good yet: what do you call that, if not contemptible? It’s like making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife. Unfortunately due to how tasteless t…

I agree that it was a rude, tasteless metaphor.

Alas, for rude, tasteless behavior, such as replacing your own authentic self-expression with the mellifluous spew of verbal diarrhea that bullshit machines slather across all surfaces they touch, rude, tasteless metaphors are the only fitting ones.

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#19

Post by jrmg »

zetalyrae wrote: post #16
jrmg wrote: post #14

This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…) The argument that communicating an idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels counterintuitive, but it’s really true. Whether it’s debugging, ‘big’ writing, or even down to the scale of a tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I’ve often had the experience of starting to explain a p…

> This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…) We have reached the point where you have college professors who defend[0] using AI to write scientific papers (in a seemingly AI-written tweet). Everywhere I go online, I see spam written with the exact same voice. Scientific journals and literary magazines are inundated with AI-wr…

Perhaps I meant ‘crude’ rather than ‘arrogant’. Or another word that a blend of the two.

I mean, I think there’s a middle ground between defending all uses of AI writing and saying “It’s like making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife.”

Edit: or “if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass”

Re: Human Routers of Machine Words

#20

Post by drdaeman »

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #5

> ... I feel contempt for the author, because if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass. Let’s not mince words here. Someone who is so eager to replace themselves, that they would have a machine write in their stead, when the machine can’t even write good yet: what do you call that, if not contemptible? It’s like making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife. Unfortunately due to how tasteless t…

Tastelessness aside, it also shows that author doesn’t (or refuses to) understand why someone may decide to delegate a documentation task to a subpar agent.

Laziness.

Yes, conceptually it’s something about surrendering one’s voice and agency to a subpar machine. Or something like that. (Though that persistence-suggestive neutering metaphor is probably a unwarranted exaggeration.) In practice though it’s more like “I don’t want to write anything, but some poorly written document I’ll just proofread to be not too blatantly wrong beats having absolutely nothing. PRs welcome.”

It might be not the best decision, sure. Quite arguably, a wrong one. Still, I find it concerning that it’s sufficient for the author to dehumanize someone, even in a jest of edginess. Like wtf dude chill down, as if the world isn’t mad enough already.

Post reply on HN