Live data from Hacker News

Don't just paste the AI at me

dontquotetheai.com

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#101
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You entirely missed the point in the article: Everybody has access to AI. Nobody needs another person proxying it slowly and poorly in a worse medium than direct access. Replying with AI responses is equal to saying that you're no longer relevant or valuable to the discussion. If you are annoyed by that and want to block people, fine, obviously nothing of value will be lost because they can just go to the source dire…

On the contrary, I completely understand the point of the article. I disagree that there are no people who benefit from another person using AI on their behalf. Everybody has free access to Google, Wikipedia, and Bing - that doesn't make sharing quotes from those sources worthy of abusive language telling people they shouldn't have children. Some people really do find value in another person opening up their ChatGPT…

> Replying with an AI response can absolutely be relevant and valuable to a discussion, just as replying with a quote from Wikipedia or some other authority can be.

But AI isn't an authority. If you're using AI as a search engine for other media, then I'd much rather you link to the source than make me wade through "Gemini suggested..." first. We should all know by now that "is this true, Grok?" is not a helpful barometer for anyone.

In your search engine analogy, I'd compare it to someone linking their search query instead of the desired link. Making me do extra work to engage with your point doesn't advance either of our understandings.

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#102

Seems a bit aggressive to send to someone. Let's spread love, not hate

It's even more aggressive, inconsiderate and boorish to paste multiple paragraphs of LLM output at somebody in response to a question or topic. Let's normalize having no tolerance and calling out people when they're being rude.

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#103
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I endorse the message of TFA (though do find the framing a bit on the overly blunt side), I believe it's unfair to reduce to "losing the person". The person is still willing to engage with you and still had to use their human words to prompt the AI. The latent space they exposed within the model is still uniquely the result of their words and effort. We're just missing the establishment of a decorum of, "even i…

> still had to use their human words to prompt the AI In that case, I would like to know what prompt they used so that I can learn to use the AI tools better. Like, we've had "let me google that for you" since 2008...

Maybe "let me prompt that for you" will catch on?

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#104

Assertion: recipient owes the person asking something. Authenticity earned through proof of work: invest your neurons and time to demonstrate fealty! Context switch for me! Buried lede: much of the time the person asking could do all the work suggested. This is like LMGTFY but backwards, it shames the person whose time is being asked for.

New improved LMGTFY with radio buttons to allow selection of "Let me gemini that for you" coming in 3... 2... 1...

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#105
I generally think this is a poor take although it mostly hinges in my opinion on whether the answer you're giving them is correct or not.

There's plenty of people who probably remember the "Let me Google That For You". This is a combination of people being rude about giving others answers mixed with some people not spending enough time figuring out the answer themselves (sometimes with just a simple google search).

I've seen plenty of people ask questions that LLMs when given the right context and prompting are able to answer. Providing them the correct answer in any way (via search, via an LLM, or via your own human expertise) is valid. Its certainly annoying if a person is giving you poor answers because the answers come from an AI. And I'd definitely take that to heart and likely ask them fewer questions in the future. But similarly if someone kept coming to me with questions that can be easily answered by AI I'd tell them to spend some more time investigating on their own.

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#106

Well, imagine not having the time in the world to read the 40 page docs that are referenced on a forum like this. By the time you read, analyze, absorb and make a conclusion, it is time to hit the sack. So, AI helps to analyze, TLDR, summarize the data. In a lot of cases, it's a question of time, not intelligence. HN is not a message board known for balanced opinions. I've found it to be a place where hate, threats g…

Write your own plugin for HN. Just install tampermonkey and get an AI to build the functionality for you. I have a plugin I made that greys out AI related topic titles.

I am not anti-AI. My issue with HN is that there is no real balance of opinions, no actual policing. Just feels like another mainstream free-for-all media tool :(

That being said, I shall consider your suggestion :)

Sol

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#107

Totally fair argument to make right now. But so funny how this is the opposite movement of "Let me Google that for you".

Opposite in which sense?

I guess this is all about rudeness from being too lazy.

My understanding is 'lmgtfy' is a response to a lazy request for help. Someone's asking for help, but it seems like they could have helped themselves if they just searched Google. -- The corrective action is: it would have been better if the person asking the question had demonstrated thought/effort about their response.

Whereas "don't paste AI slop", merely copy-pasting an LLM's output is lazy. (The asker could have asked an LLM). -- The corrective action is: the response should show more thought/effort.

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#108
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You entirely missed the point in the article: Everybody has access to AI. Nobody needs another person proxying it slowly and poorly in a worse medium than direct access. Replying with AI responses is equal to saying that you're no longer relevant or valuable to the discussion. If you are annoyed by that and want to block people, fine, obviously nothing of value will be lost because they can just go to the source dire…

On the contrary, I completely understand the point of the article. I disagree that there are no people who benefit from another person using AI on their behalf. Everybody has free access to Google, Wikipedia, and Bing - that doesn't make sharing quotes from those sources worthy of abusive language telling people they shouldn't have children. Some people really do find value in another person opening up their ChatGPT…

[dead]

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#109
Reading the BBC article about poisoning the real time AI well of info yesterday, I was super struck by this point

> "We're moving towards this 'one true answer' world. Before, Google would give you 10 blue links and you would kind of do your own research. But AI just gives you one answer. It becomes so easy to just take things at face value. You need to be careful."

In a world of insecurities, and a world where we crave out-facting or out-proving our fellow discussioners, this “one right answer” is like synthetic drugs to the social experience. And we suspect “it’s not good for us” but it’s just so damned addictive.

Re: Don't just paste the AI at me

#110
I find that junior engineers like to use it “up the authority” of their arguments when my experience clashes with their desires. OTOH, I am humbly aware that sometimes my experience is wrong and a curse to me. I DO need to be careful to not “hold on to old ways”. But I’m not convinced this is the right way to level the fields between wisdom/experience and innovation/freshtake.
Post reply on HN