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

I know you didn't write this

ammil.industries

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: I know you didn't write this

#111

Post by uragur27754 »

I recently joined a project where the manager greeted me cheerfully that my new task is fully described and specified in a technical architecture doc. The manager left shortly after and considered my onboarding complete. It took the next couple of weeks to realize that the docs were AI generated, surprisingly detailed and accurate. However they were largely irrelevant to the actual problem the client has.

I was later asked why is it taking so long to complete the task when the document had a step by step recipe. I had to explain why the AI was solving the wrong problem in the wrong place. The PMs did not understand and scheduled more meetings to solve the problem. All they knew is that tickets were not moving on the board.

I suddenly realized that nobody had any idea of what’s going on at all on a technical level. Their contribution was to fret about target dates and executive reports. It’s like a pyramid scheme of technical ignorance. The consequence is some ICs forced to do uncompensated overtime to actually make working software.

These are the unintended consequences of the AI hype that CEOs are evangelizing.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#112

Post by a1j9o94 »

skwirl wrote: post #59
a1j9o94 wrote: post #36

I know I'm an outlier on HN, but I really don't care if AI was used to write something I'm reading. I just care whether or not the ideas are good and clear. And if we're talking about work output 99% of what people were putting out before AI wasn't particularly good. And in my genuine experience AI's output is better than things people I worked with would spend hours and days on. I feel like more time is wasted tryin…

>But it shouldn't matter if he gave 5 bullets to Chat gpt that expanded it to a full page with a detailed plan. The coworker should just give me the five bullet points they put into ChatGPT. I can trivially dump it into ChatGPT or any other LLM myself to turn it into a "plan."

Honestly if you have a working relationship/communication norms where that's expected, I agree just send the 5 bullets.

In most of my work contexts, people want more formal documents with clean headings titles, detailed risks even if it's the same risks we've put on every project.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#113

Post by a1j9o94 »

mystifyingpoi wrote: post #85
a1j9o94 wrote: post #36

I know I'm an outlier on HN, but I really don't care if AI was used to write something I'm reading. I just care whether or not the ideas are good and clear. And if we're talking about work output 99% of what people were putting out before AI wasn't particularly good. And in my genuine experience AI's output is better than things people I worked with would spend hours and days on. I feel like more time is wasted tryin…

> I just care whether or not the ideas are good and clear That's the thing. It actually really matters whether the ideas presented are coming from a coworker, or the ideas are coming from LLM. I've seem way too many scenarios where I'm asking a coworker, if we should do X or Y, and all I get is a useless wall of spewed text, with a complete disregard to the project and circumstances on hand. I need YOUR input, from Y…

I would argue that's just your coworker giving you a bad answer. If you prompt a chatbot with the right business context, look at what it spits out, and layer in your judgement before you hit send, then it's fine if the AI typed it out.

If they answer your question with irrelevant context, then that's the problem, not that it was AI

Re: I know you didn't write this

#114

Post by mlhpdx »

QuercusMax wrote: post #39
mlhpdx wrote: post #31

Is writing with LLM assistance that different than writing with a typewriter 100+ years ago? Than using a computer and printer 30 years ago? Each can be seen as using a tool to add false legitimacy. But ultimately they are just tools.

Those two things aren't even comparable. Both of those are using technology to physically imprint letters onto the page, but in both cases those are still your own ideas in your own words.

But not the appearance. It’s not the same, but it rhymes.

Edit: to clarify, people were judged by the clarity of their handwriting in the past and these tools made that impossible. Similarly, LLMs spackle over higher level language issues.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#115

Post by mlhpdx »

School-Cotton wrote: post #52
mlhpdx wrote: post #31

Is writing with LLM assistance that different than writing with a typewriter 100+ years ago? Than using a computer and printer 30 years ago? Each can be seen as using a tool to add false legitimacy. But ultimately they are just tools.

Yes, it is obviously fundamentally different.

Explain?

Re: I know you didn't write this

#116

Post by recursive »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #48
recursive wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem comes from the asymmetry between the effort that went into generating and judging. You can have one person spinning out documents that can keep a whole team busy and dragging everyone down. Along the same lines as "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes."

If the documents they're putting out are bad, then they're doing bad work and that eventually comes with consequences from your coworkers and superiors. If they're doing good work, then great! Who cares if an LLM wrote most of it and they just edit it? That's not super different than the current relationship between senior and line workers.

I guess I'm making some assumptions here. But I've been asked to review some documents before. Maybe I didn't notice the ones that were good. But my general assumption is that if someone gives me the output of an LLM to review, it's not going to be good work. In my experience it hasn't been good work generally.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#117

Post by mlhpdx »

zephen wrote: post #49
mlhpdx wrote: post #31

Is writing with LLM assistance that different than writing with a typewriter 100+ years ago? Than using a computer and printer 30 years ago? Each can be seen as using a tool to add false legitimacy. But ultimately they are just tools.

Yes, it's different. All these tools provide leverage to the author, but only one of these tools provides non-deterministic leverage.

That’s a great distinction — the non-determinism is a huge difference.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#118

Post by [deleted] »

messe wrote: post #2

> Suspicions aroused, I clicked on the “Document History” button in the top right and saw a clean history of empty document – and then wham – fully-formed plan, as if it had just spilled out of someone’s brain, straight onto the screen, ready to share. This isn't always a great indicator. I can't stand Google Docs as an interface to write with, so use VIM and the copy/paste the completed document into it.

[deleted]

Re: I know you didn't write this

#119

Post by School-Cotton »

mlhpdx wrote: post #115
School-Cotton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is obviously fundamentally different.

Explain?

Because LLM-created content is not an expression of your own human creativity or intellect.

It's not like typewriters -- in a written work the content is the entire point, not the handwriting. So unlike previous tools, this one is replacing you for the part that actually matters.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#120

Post by zdragnar »

zephen wrote: post #63
zdragnar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this actually been tried? Plenty of people have released AI generated (in part or nearly whole) media as their own, especially in music and fiction literature. Personally, I'd love to see most of this stuff disappear from services that advertise it on par with human generated media like spotify and amazon (though I'll also admit to having a soft spot for the soul style AI covers of 50 cent and others).

> Has this actually been tried? Yes, Thaler v. Perlmutter. I'm pretty sure, even though that's recent, that it fully comports with decades old law on patents, as well. I can't find an older case, but Thaler v. Vidal is a recent patent case.

All that case settled is that AI cannot hold a copyright. Humans can still claim copyright if they put their name on a largely AI produced work.

Your original complaint was that humans were saying "I wrote this", and those people are definitely going to be claiming copyright for it in court at some point... In fact, Thaler v. Perlmutter only makes that more likely as AI programs definitely cannot claim copyright themselves.

Hence my confusion. In principle I definitely agree with your original point though- people should produce content to express themselves, rather than becoming an expression of AI.

Post reply on HN