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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: I know you didn't write this

#131

Post by uhhhd »

bakugo wrote: post #64
axus wrote: post #12

Why can't the plan be judged on its merits? Rigorous verification of the idea is a good thing that should happen anyways. The main potential problem I see is transmission of privileged information to a third party. I assume they are working at a business to make money, not a school or a writing competition.

> Why can't the plan be judged on its merits? Because of the difference in effort involved in generating it vs effort required to judge it. Why are you entitled to "your" work being judged on its merits by a real human, when the work itself was not created by you, or any human? If you couldn't be bothered to write it, why should someone else be bothered to read it?

This is petty and bad business. No serious entrepreneur or leader worth his salt cares about this.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#132

Post by embedding-shape »

zephen wrote: post #92
embedding-shape wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it in a way that I'll blame the person regardless of who actually wrote the text. The LLM messed up and you failed to notice? I blame you. You messed up and failed to notice? I still blame you.

I get that. But, as discussed in some other threads, the leverage provided by the LLM allows the miscreant to inundate you with slop by only pressing a few buttons. And rejection is work. So they can produce more slop, requiring more rejections, faster than you can read the slop. This is what's new. You reject it, they feed your rejection back into the LLM, and hand you something 5 minutes later with so many formatti…

Yeah, that's not how it works, in my experience. They hand me something, I notice it's likely written by LLM, ask them. They say "Yeah, some quick things blah blah" and then I ask "Did you check all the details themselves?" and they say "Yeah, most of them" and then I answer "Ok, check all the details, then I'll go through it" and then later they come back and things look a lot better.

If you're ending up doing this back and forth with someone more than once, just outright refuse to work with someone so unprofessional who doesn't even validate their own work. It wouldn't fly in most workplaces I've worked in.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#133

Post by mlhpdx »

School-Cotton wrote: post #119
mlhpdx wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I see your point but that’s not mine at all.

People use these tools for a variety of reasons (as diverse as people’s experiences). One can use an LLM to help express a perspective or develop and opinion (very important for those who struggle to communicate), or one can fake a picture or voice for fraud, or a million other purposes. It’s just a tool. How it gets used is about the people, not the tool.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#134

Post by mlhpdx »

QuercusMax wrote: post #128
mlhpdx wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dictation has existed for millennia; alternatively, hiring someone to neatly write out your letters after making a messy draft has also existed for a very long time. My mom paid half her way through college in the 60s by typing people's papers for them who didn't know how to type properly. These things are not remotely comparable.

Isn’t that exactly the same? People hiring someone (or using something) to make themselves better understood, more professional looking, or falsely authoritative?

Re: I know you didn't write this

#135

Post by QuercusMax »

mlhpdx wrote: post #134
QuercusMax wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dictation has existed for millennia; alternatively, hiring someone to neatly write out your letters after making a messy draft has also existed for a very long time. My mom paid half her way through college in the 60s by typing people's papers for them who didn't know how to type properly. These things are not remotely comparable.

Isn’t that exactly the same? People hiring someone (or using something) to make themselves better understood, more professional looking, or falsely authoritative?

It's more like hiring a ghostwriter, something which also has been around for a long time, and people who use ghostwriters are rightly criticized for putting their name on someone else's work

Example: Donald Trump did not write Art of the Deal

Re: I know you didn't write this

#136

Post by tlavoie »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #44
QuercusMax wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should use separate browser profiles...

Or separate machines. It's not impossible to maintain sufficient separation in software, but it's a lot easier to skip the whole mess.

Even still, I have to make sure my KVM switch is connected to the correct laptop. (Work on one side, personal on the other, and shared keyboard / trackball)

Re: I know you didn't write this

#137

Post by Agraillo »

eric-p7 wrote: post #27

"Chat, expand these 3 points into 10 pages." Later, at someone else's desk: "Chat, summarize these 10 pages into 3 points."

It was funny. On a more serious note, if one works in a sphere where expanding with AI makes "good enough" documents, then I have bad news for him - the sphere has too much redundancy in the first place (the same place that was used for training). So no new information is created in millions of documents made by humans, and this was noticed by the training pattern recognition. You cannot do the same with historical texts; unless we live in a simulation with predictable random generators, the events are random, and there are no rules like "If the king's name starts with a G, he will likely die in the first week of October."

Re: I know you didn't write this

#138

Post by bakugo »

uhhhd wrote: post #131
bakugo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't the plan be judged on its merits? Because of the difference in effort involved in generating it vs effort required to judge it. Why are you entitled to "your" work being judged on its merits by a real human, when the work itself was not created by you, or any human? If you couldn't be bothered to write it, why should someone else be bothered to read it?

This is petty and bad business. No serious entrepreneur or leader worth his salt cares about this.

Well, clearly, you know a lot about being a serious enterpreneur. Don't let us luddites drag you down, I'm sure your next 100% vibe coded B2B SaaS will be a massive success.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#139

Post by satisfice »

pessimizer wrote: post #109
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with many other things (em dashes, emojis, bullet lists, it's-not-x-it's-y constructs, triple adjectives, etc) seeing any one of them isn't a tell. Seeing all of them, or many of them in a single piece of content, is probably the tell. When you use these tools you get a knack for what they do in "vanilla" situations. If you're doing a quick prompt, no guidance, no context and no specifics, you'll get a type of ans…

The author did not do this. The author thought it was wonderful, read the entire thing, then on a lark (they "twigged" it) checked out the edit history. They took the lack of it as instant confirmation ("So it’s definitely AI.") The rest of the blog is just random subjective morality wank with implications of larger implications, constructed by borrowing the central points of a series of popular articles in their ent…

You may be missing the point. The author’s feeling about the plan he was sent were predicated on an assumption that he thought was safe— that his co-worker had written the document that he claimed to have “put together.”

If you order a meal at a restaurant and later discover that the chicken you ate was recycled from another diner’s table (waste not want not!) you would likely be outraged. It doesn’t matter if it tasted good.

As soon as you tell me you used AI to produce something, you force me review it carefully, unless your reputation for excellent review of your own is well established. Which it probably isn’t— because you are the kind of guy who uses AI to do his work.

Re: I know you didn't write this

#140

Post by zephen »

zdragnar wrote: post #120
zephen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 them…

> All that case settled is that AI cannot hold a copyright.

Not at all. Thaler wasn't asking that the AI hold the copyright. He wanted to hold the copyright of a work _authored_ by a machine.

But a machine cannot be an author, under law. And a machine cannot be an inventor, under law.

The distinction may seem subtle, but patent law and copyright law both make a distinction between the inventor/author, and the holder of the patent/copyright. For example, most software companies require that any patents by employees be assigned to them.

I found the earlier patent case I was thinking of, Beech Aircraft v EDO, but the appellate ruling in Thaler is quite readable.

https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-523...

> Humans can still claim copyright if they put their name on a largely AI produced work.

That will certainly be a developing area of law, but it will probably have limited applicability, depending on how much creative input the human actually had into the work.

Let's say that someone asks DALL-E to create a picture of a cat juggling chainsaws. They then copyright it. Someone sees the picture, says "Hey, that's cool! Hey, DALL-E! Make me a picture of a cat juggling chainsaws!" and then they happen to get substantially the same image.

The entire purpose of copyright (from an author's perspective) (in the US, where there are no "moral rights") is to be able to sue infringers. Can the first guy sue the second guy?

It seems unlikely he would win, because copyright does not protect ideas, and the idea is all that the first guy supplied to DALL-E.

Maybe the first guy can win simply because the second image was created after DALL-E sucked in the first image in its next go-round of appropriating the entire web. But then that begs the question of what the first image is infringing, doesn't it? If DALL-E settles all authorship litigation and can proceed, then the second image should be as non-infringing as the first.

> Your original complaint was that humans were saying "I wrote this",

No, my original complaint is the too many people don't bother to figure out who wrote what.

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

Wasn't my point.

In any case, here's an interesting take on the current state of affairs from the perspective of patents.

https://www.iplawgroup.com/staking-out-a-claim-for-inventors...

Post reply on HN