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

ai;dr

0xsid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 313 posts

Re: ai;dr

#111

Post by Terr_ »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #30
cgriswald wrote: post #18

> For me, writing is the most direct window into how someone thinks, perceives, and groks the world. Once you outsource that to an LLM, I'm not sure what we're even doing here. Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write? Because writing is a dirty, scratched window with liquid between the frames and an LLM can be the microfiber cloth and degreaser that makes it just a bit clearer…

> Outsourcing thinking is bad. I keep seeing this and I don't think I agree. We outsource thinking everyday. Companies do this everyday. I don't study weather myself, I check an app and bring an umbrella if it says it's gonna rain. My team trusts each other do do some thinking in their area, and present bits sideways / upwards. We delegate lots of things. We collaborate on lots of things. What needs to be clear is wh…

IMO it helps to take a scenario and then imagine every task is being delegated to a randomized impoverished human remote contractor, with the same (lack of) oversight and involvement by the user.

There's a strong overlap between things which bad (unwise, reckless, unethical, fraudulent, etc.) in both cases.

> We outsource thinking everyday. [...] What needs to be clear is who owns what.

Also once you have clarity, there's another layer where some owning/approval/delegation is not permissible.

For example, a student ordering "make me a 3 page report on the Renaissance." Whether the order went to another human or an LLM, it is still cheating, and that wouldn't change even if they carefully reviewed it and gave it a stamp of careful approval.

Re: ai;dr

#112

Post by Daishiman »

phyzome wrote: post #59

Seems pretty silly to me to rail against AI-generated writing and then say it's good for documentation.

Documentation can be fairly rote, straightforward and can have a uniform style that doesn't benefit from being opinionated.

Re: ai;dr

#113

Post by miniatureape »

comboy wrote: post #87
losvedir wrote: post #6

I really like Oxide's take on AI for prose: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 and how it breaks the "social contract" where usually it takes more effort to write than to read, and so you have a sense that it's worth it to read. So I get the frustration that "ai;dr" captures. On the other hand, I've also seen human writing incorrectly labeled AI. I wrote (using AI!) https://seeitwritten.com as a bit of an exp…

> https://seeitwritten.com Fun, I'd make playback speed something like 5x or whatever feels appropriate, I think nobody truly wants to watch those at 1x.

I had a take on this same thing a number of years ago. Much simpler, but the idea was just to see it at a glance. https://miniatureape.github.io/sprezzatura/

Re: ai;dr

#114

Post by malfist »

netsharc wrote: post #71
dontwannahearit wrote: post #25

It's pretty much over for the human-internet. Search was gamed, its usefulness has plummeted, so humans will increasingly ask their LLM of choice and that LLM will have been trained on the content of the internet. So when someone wants to know something about the topic that my website is focused on, chances are it will not be the material from the website they see directly, but a summary of what the LLM learned from…

Tragedy of the attention-economy. Ad networks gives you money if you placed their ads on your site, so people got machines to generate fluff to earn some money. Now all search result is just bullshit pages to capture your attention until the banner ad.. A simple query like "Ford Focus wheel nut torque" gives pages with blah blah like: > Overview Of Lug Nut Torque For Ford Focus > The Ford Focus uses specific lug nut…

And that site never actually lists the manufacturer recommended torque either. It's just all slop to get eyeballs.

Re: ai;dr

#116

Post by andrewdb »

We are getting to a point where AI will be able to construct sound arguments in prose. They will make logical sense. Dismissing them only because of their origin is fallacious thinking.

Conclusion:

Dismissing arguments solely because they are AI-generated constitutes a class of genetic fallacy, which should be called 'Argumentum ad machina'.

Premises:

1. The validity of a logical argument is determined by the truth of its premises and the soundness of its inferences, not by the identity of the entity presenting it.

2. Dismissing an argument based on its source rather than its content constitutes a genetic fallacy.

3. The phrase 'that's AI-generated' functions as a dismissal based on source rather than content.

Assumptions:

1. AI-generated arguments can have true premises and sound inferences

2. The genetic fallacy is a legitimate logical error to avoid

3. Source-based dismissals are categorically inappropriate in logical evaluation

4. AI should be treated as equivalent to any other source when evaluating arguments

Re: ai;dr

#117

Post by grishka »

> Before you get your pitchforks out..

> ..and call me an AI luddite

Oh please do call me an AI luddite. It's an honor for me.

Re: ai;dr

#118

Post by giancarlostoro »

The correct way to use AI for writing is to ask for feedback, not the entire output. This is my personal opinion, English is not my first language, so sometimes I miss what's obvious to a native speaker. I've always used tools that tell me what's wrong with my writing as an opportunity to learn to do better next time. When I finally had Firefox on my computer and it corrected my spelling, it helped me to improve my spelling 100-fold. I still have weird grammar issues with punctuation here and there, and don't ask me where to put a coma (comma?) - that's another one, because I always forget.

I think using AI for writing feedback is fine, but if you're going to have it write for you, don't call it your writing.

Re: ai;dr

#119

Post by everforward »

joshuaissac wrote: post #19
raincole wrote: post #10

> AI-generated code feels like progress and efficiency, while AI-generated articles and posts feel low-effort I've noticed that attitude a lot. Everyone thinks their use of AI is perfectly justified while the others are generating slops. In gamedev it's especially prominent - artists think generating code is perfectly ok but get acute stress response when someone suggests generating art assets.

AI-generated code is meant for the machine, or for the author/prompter. AI-generated text is typically meant for other people. I think that makes a meaningful difference.

A lot of writing (maybe most) is almost the same. Code is a means of translating a process into semantics a computer understands. Most non-fiction writing is a means of translating information or an idea into semantics that allow other people to understand that information or idea.

I don’t think either is inherently bad because it’s AI, but it can definitely be bad if the AI is less good at encoding those ideas into their respective formats.

Re: ai;dr

#120

Post by alontorres »

yabones wrote: post #7
alontorres wrote: post #2

I think that this requires some nuance. Was the post generated with a simple short prompt that contributed little? Sure, it's probably slop. But if the post was generated through a long process of back-and-forth with the model, where significant modifications/additions were made by a human? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I don't see what value the LLM would add - writing itself isn't that hard. Thinking is hard, and outsourcing that to an LLM is what people dislike.

I'd push back a bit on "writing itself isn't that hard." Clear writing is difficult, and many people with good ideas struggle to communicate them effectively. An LLM can help bridge that gap.

I do agree with your core point - the thinking is what matters. Where I've found LLMs most useful in my own writing is as a thinking tool, not a writing tool.

Using them to challenge my assumptions, point out gaps in my argument, or steelman the opposing view. The final prose is mine, but the thinking got sharper through the process.

Post reply on HN