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

We're losing our voice to LLMs

tonyalicea.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 425 posts

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#151

Post by grey-area »

randycupertino wrote: post #124
AstroBen wrote: post #67

There's something unique about art and writing where we just don't want to see computers do it As soon as I know something is written by AI I tune out. I don't care how good it is - I'm not interested if a person didn't go through the process of writing it

I had a weird LLM use instance happen at work this week, we were in a big important protocol review meeting with 35 remote people and someone asks how long IUDs begin to take effect in patients. I put it in ChatGPT for my own reference and read the answer in my head but didn't say anything (I'm ops, I just row the boat and let the docs steer the ship). Anyone this bigwig Oxford/Johns Hopkins cardiologist who we pay $…

The LLM may well have pulled the answer from a medical reference similar to that used by the dr. I have no idea why you think an expert in the field would use ChatGPT for a simple question, that would be negligence.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#152

Post by simianparrot »

bachittle wrote: post #135

If you give an LLM enough context, it writes in your voice. But it requires using an intelligent model, and very thoughtful context development. Most people don't do this because it requires effort, and one could argue maybe even more effort than just writing the damn thing yourself. It's like trying to teach a human, or anyone, how to talk like you: very hard because it requires at worst your entire life story.

Why the f- would I train software to do my thinking and reasoning for me!?

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#154

Post by Lapel2742 »

vladms wrote: post #104
Lapel2742 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's how the algorithms promote engagement. They are destroying our democratic societies and should be heavily regulated. The same will become true for AI.

My view is that they are just exposing issues with the people in the said societies and now is harder to ignore them. Much of the hate and the fear and the envy that I see on social networks have other reasons, but people are having difficulties to address those. With or without social networks this anger will go somewhere, don't think regulation alone can fix that. Let's hope it will be something transformative not…

They seem to artificially create filter bubbles, echo chambers and rage. They do that just for the money. They divide societies.

For example:

(Trap of Social Media Algorithms: A Systematic Review of Research on Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Their Impact on Youth)

> First, there is a consistent observation across computational audits and simulation studies that platform curation systems amplify ideologically homogeneous content, reinforcing confirmation bias and limiting incidental exposure to diverse viewpoints [1,4,37]. These structural dynamics provide the “default” informational environment in which youth engagement unfolds. Simulation models highlight how small initial biases are magnified by recommender systems, producing polarization cascades at the network level [2,10,38]. Evidence from YouTube demonstrates how personalization drifts toward sensationalist and radical material [14,41,49]. Such findings underscore that algorithmic bias is not a marginal technical quirk but a structural driver shaping everyday media diets. For youth, this environment is especially influential: platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube are central not only for entertainment but also for identity work and civic socialization [17]. The narrowing of exposure may thus have longer-term consequences for political learning and civic participation.

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/11/301

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#155

Post by rcxdude »

drbojingle wrote: post #121
ricardo81 wrote: post #6

I deleted my Facebook account a couple of years ago and my Twitter one yesterday. It's not just LLMs, it's how the algorithms promote engagement. i.e. rage bait, videos with obvious inaccuracies etc. Who gets rewarded, the content creators and the platform. Engaging with it just seems to accentuate the problem. There needs to be algorithms that promote cohorts and individuals preferences. Just because I said to someo…

No, there needs to be control over the algorithms that get used. You ought to be able to tune it. There needs to be a Google fuu equivalent for social media. Or, instead of one platform one algorithm, let users define the algorithm to a certain degree, using llms to help with that and then you can allow others to access your algorithms too. Asking for someone Facebook to tweak the algorithm is not going to help imo.

IMO there should not be an algorithm. You should just get what you have subscribed to, with whatever filters you have defined. There are better and worse algorithms but I think the meat of the rot is the expectation of an algorithm determining 90% of what you see.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#156

Post by NortySpock »

randycupertino wrote: post #124
AstroBen wrote: post #67

There's something unique about art and writing where we just don't want to see computers do it As soon as I know something is written by AI I tune out. I don't care how good it is - I'm not interested if a person didn't go through the process of writing it

I had a weird LLM use instance happen at work this week, we were in a big important protocol review meeting with 35 remote people and someone asks how long IUDs begin to take effect in patients. I put it in ChatGPT for my own reference and read the answer in my head but didn't say anything (I'm ops, I just row the boat and let the docs steer the ship). Anyone this bigwig Oxford/Johns Hopkins cardiologist who we pay $…

Or both the doctor and ChatGPT were quoting verbatim from a reputable source?

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#157

Post by grey-area »

WD-42 wrote: post #5

Where are these places where everything is written by a LLM? I guess just don’t go there. Most of the comments on HN still seem human.

Many instagram and facebook posts are now llm generated to farm engagement. The verbosity and breathless excitement tends to give it away.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#158

Post by loloquwowndueo »

Aurornis wrote: post #110
isoprophlex wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorting the feed by "recent" at least gives you a randomized assortment of self aggrandizement, instead of algorithmically enhanced ragebait

Better suggestion: Ignore the feed if you don’t like it. Don’t visit the site unless you have a reason to, like searching for jobs, recruiting, or looking someone up. I will never understand these posts that imply that you’re compelled to read the LinkedIn feed unless you delete your account. What’s compelling you people to visit the site and read the feed if you hate it so much? I don’t understand.

Did you just post basically the same reply to two comments 2 minutes apart? :)

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#159

Post by anonymouskimmer »

randycupertino wrote: post #124
AstroBen wrote: post #67

There's something unique about art and writing where we just don't want to see computers do it As soon as I know something is written by AI I tune out. I don't care how good it is - I'm not interested if a person didn't go through the process of writing it

I had a weird LLM use instance happen at work this week, we were in a big important protocol review meeting with 35 remote people and someone asks how long IUDs begin to take effect in patients. I put it in ChatGPT for my own reference and read the answer in my head but didn't say anything (I'm ops, I just row the boat and let the docs steer the ship). Anyone this bigwig Oxford/Johns Hopkins cardiologist who we pay $…

The one thing a cardiologist should be able to do better than a random person is verify the plausibility of a ChatGPT answer on reproductive medicine. So I guess/hope you're paying for that verification, not just the answer itself.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#160

Post by grey-area »

SoftTalker wrote: post #85
bakugo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already many AI-generated submissions on HN every day. Comments maybe less so, but I've already seen some, and the amount is only going to increase with time.

Every time I see AI videos in my YouTube recommendations I say “don’t recommend this channel” but the algorithm doesn’t seem to get the hint. Why don’t they make a preference option of “don’t show me AI content”

Because they have a financial incentive not to.
Post reply on HN