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

You can just say it

noperator.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 241 posts

Re: You can just say it

#171

Post by bigstrat2003 »

roenxi wrote: post #53
cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Yeah, that's one of those sentiments where people say it but they probably don't mean it literally. Much like if your boss asks for honest feedback giving it to them with both barrels is a career limiting move. You make subtle mistakes in how you perceive the world, the interlocutor makes similar mistakes and the damage those mistakes do is limited if you follow some structural rules of how to communicate (aka polite…

No, I want the prompt. Slop from the clanker has zero value to me. At least the prompt was written by a human, even if it's otherwise not useful.

Re: You can just say it

#172

Post by dxdm »

jatora wrote: post #123
chrneu wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI repeats itself. You aren't enjoying anything new, you're enjoying a version of an average. In however many years we'll wake up and wonder why everything is the same....oh wait. this is exactly why people dont like this. it creates an echo chamber in art which kills what art itself is about. it normalizes noise.

If you want to be reductive then everything is already the same. Music is 99% the same chords, art is 99% the same colors, etc... Or you can argue from good faith and actually learn or teach.

Your argument can be used to discredit all arguments, including itself. Because your argument is made only of the same letters as all others (let's stay in English, without losing generality), it is the same as all others, and thus it has no discernible point.

Note that it's you who introduced this reduction, not the GP.

Re: You can just say it

#173

Post by hardbass »

javascriptfan69 wrote: post #137
jatora wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy. This belief is not true and I will fight to the bedrock of psychology and nature against this until the ridiculous sentiment is eradicated from humanity's lexicon. There are fundamental aspects to our perception, across all senses, that lie underneath human creation. You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool…

>You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator. I don't think this is true. I think that if you found out you were in a simulation and that all these things were just electrical pulses being sent to your brain in a jar it w…

How will it change anything? Simulation is a pointless term that has no meaning here. It is completely real to you. In fact I don't even know whats the difference between a so called "real" universe and a "boltzmann" brain. This weird "analogy" seems to ignore information itself needs a certain amount of energy/matter/space, I doubt simulating our universe can be done with anything less than the universal size of complexity.

Re: You can just say it

#174

Post by luckylion »

emodendroket wrote: post #153
nlawalker wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. I don’t know why, maybe because it feels not genuine. It's because it's a pretty safe bet that the prompt either implicitly or explicitly says "I don't really care," and the act of using AI to generate the response is almost entirely an effort to conceal that.

I don't think that's a safe bet at all; the choice to put the message to an AI may express a desire, however misguided, to produce a "better" (clearer, less likely to cause offense, whatever) message than the author feels able to manage unaided.

Of all the times someone used AI and did not disclose it, I've never found it to be a desire to be better, it was always a desire to do 5 minutes of work and still have a result that looks like you spent multiple hours. Except it only looks that way at a glance, it's usually bad because that type of person does not care, so their prompts are bad, and they don't care to even read the results.

In my experience, the people who actually wanted to improve the presentation of their messages are upfront about it and clearly say they're using AI to organize their thoughts or polish their english.

Re: You can just say it

#175

Post by hardbass »

sedatk wrote: post #76
stavros wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That kind of straw man, that consciousness only emerges from electrical signals, is one of the reasons we haven’t reached AGI yet because we keep underestimating it. There’s way more biological, chemical and physical phenomena going on in brain that gives way to consciousness than just neurons firing ions.

It is still unless proven otherwise a purely physical process.

Re: You can just say it

#176

Post by hardbass »

cvoss wrote: post #55
triyambakam wrote: post #4

Citing "God created man in his own image" for robustness doesn't really land well. I'm not even an atheist either.

If you believe in the objective truth of the quoted source, then that makes the claim that humans are valuable about as robust as any claim can be. If you do not believe in the objective truth of the quoted source, you must still reckon with the fact that this is the (start of) the punchline of the opening narrative of the foundational text of the world's largest religion or religion family. (The punchline continues…

That's all very well but prove it first. "Narratives" are perfectly fine stories but not physical truths. It is absurd to cite a "narrative" without proving it's physical truth first.

Re: You can just say it

#177

Post by hardbass »

perching_aix wrote: post #24

An appeal to a religious text being presented as a robust argument borders on mockery. Especially after it follows a claim about how the position at hand is one that needs not to be qualified. Why are you qualifying it then? Is it because you (correctly) sense that you're presenting it as a fact of the world, rather than just as your opinion, and feel the gap in justification?

If a religious text is cited in anything non-religious, the religion or religious text should be proven physically true first, otherwise dismissed from use.

Re: You can just say it

#178

Post by zamadatix »

roenxi wrote: post #53
cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Yeah, that's one of those sentiments where people say it but they probably don't mean it literally. Much like if your boss asks for honest feedback giving it to them with both barrels is a career limiting move. You make subtle mistakes in how you perceive the world, the interlocutor makes similar mistakes and the damage those mistakes do is limited if you follow some structural rules of how to communicate (aka polite…

It really depends on the individual and the context they say it. Same for the bit about your boss.

Re: You can just say it

#179

Post by ridjdjdj »

fcarraldo wrote: post #124
nojs wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“tell my obnoxious boss to fuck off about the tps reports” isn’t a great career move for them though

I would rather my reports tell me to fuck off than to generate something telling me to fuck off in polite but insincere terms full of emojis and em dashes. Honesty is valuable.

[dead]
Post reply on HN