Live data from Hacker News

Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

bcantrill.dtrace.org

201–210 of 451 posts

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have found this extremely relevant as a (primarily) non-verbal thinker. I don't, generally, think in words, more in - I guess I would call it something like meta-shapes? A sense of a shape but not things I can exactly visualise. (You might be surprised to read this and then hear I have an English degree. Surely I thought about Shakespeare in words?! Nope. Shapes, movement, structures) For me, having to write is cri…

Interesting. I have designed code that way. And the shapes aren't UML diagram elements or anything like that, they're just... shapes. I'll slowly walk around, in the hall or outside, and be kind of seeing these shapes and vaguely moving my hands around as I sort out the relationships between them. I think I have produced reasonably good designs. Don't ask me to teach anyone how I do it, though.

I find this and the parent comment highly relatable with the caveat that I also find it extremely intuitive and rewarding to get good outputs from quality LLM's like Sol or Astra, and I haven't had any trouble with "flow state".

One of the most rewarding things for me is figuring out a good shape for a system and how it would interoperate with the other systems, especially in a way that reframes other parts of the codebase in a way that bring clarity and makes it more intuitive to work with. Creating the right ontologies can make all the difference in what you can do with a project. It's a form of creating mathematical objects.

For example, a Unity game I work on has quest and dialog systems driven by visual scripting graphs. We had two way dialog with different units for player response choices and npc dialog. But we wanted to expand to letting NPC's have dialog with each other as well as conversations with more than two participants. I went outside and thought it over, which largely amounted to visualizing a dialog node graph and a feeling in the back of my mind like it was trying to perform a kind of geometric shape-fitting exercise. A fitment solution jumped out at me to have only one "Dialog" node shared by all participants, with a "participant" value on it. If the player parses this node then the options go on-screen as responses, while if an NPC parses this node with multiple options in it, it picks one. And this lets you voice the player if you want, and enables some things like overhearing other NPC's talk to an NPC then talking to that NPC yourself and having the same tree.

And for quests, the quests had just been for the player, but I was thinking about how to make scripted events in-game easiest to work with for script team who primarily works in visual scripting. Similar story - let the NPC's have their own little quests, with task stages, which are easy to track and make branching choices from, and let the NPC's definition for how to use that quest contain a collection of actions to override the typical actions available to it, so an NPC in a specific "quest" can't do things you don't want it to do, a common enough case that it's preferable to making a series of conditions on the general action planner like "not in quest A"

And timing myself, it took 1-2 hours each time to write out the detailed plan for how I wanted each thing implemented in the game with some other tasks thrown in, and it paid off after Astra worked on it until it was done. It was awesome coming back to something pretty much exactly what I asked for each time.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#202

These are all important points and I love the analogy. But there is an even bigger issue with having LLMs write for you: Writing is thinking. Thinking and deciding. There have been many times when I start out writing something substantial - could be an email, a blog post, a software design document, anything - when my own views substantially changed during the writing process. Writing forces you to serialize your tho…

(I work at Anthropic) I agree. I use an LLM to write my code, but I do all of my writing by hand, since it helps me think. It reminds me of the transition over the last year from AI-assisted coding to AI doing all the coding. At first the code output wasn't good enough, and humans read and iterated on the code all day, so the details of the source code mattered. Now, the code is largely high quality and it meets a la…

Writing is already amenable to many different levels of abstraction, though. If an LLM can expand your outline into writing, then you aren’t writing at the correct level of abstraction in my opinion; you should instead be explaining how you arrived at your chosen outline. You don’t need to explain the details because any party can generate those with an LLM; same as how many PRs today can be auto-generated and no one needs to read implementations; that is no longer the correct level abstraction to work at. This should actually free us to do work at a higher level of abstraction —- more consideration of strategy, objectives, etc and less worry about implementation details.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the AI agree, but how about you and the team who will eventually read and do code review. Cognitive burden increases marginally with AI assisted coding. This is why we haven't seen big projects(think browsers and browser engines) spawning in the past year.

> but how about you and the team who will eventually read and do code review. Why are you reviewing AI code in detail? Do you also review the assembly output of GCC line by line?

I can’t remember the last time GCC emitted code that just flat out called the wrong function. If it did that occasionally, I would review it.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#205
post #14

I'm a bit skeptical of arguments of the form, "You should not use LLMs without disclosure because LLMs at bad at writing." My reasoning is: If LLMs get better at writing—which I think is extremely likely—will you switch positions and say that now using LLMs without disclosure is A-OK? Surely some people are willing to bite that bullet and say yes. But for most people, my guess is that the answer will remain no. Thus,…

> If LLMs get better at writing—which I think is extremely likely—will you switch positions and say that now using LLMs without disclosure is A-OK? If LLM writing improves to the point where they can infer the business (or other real world) context and serves the functional purpose of informing others as opposed to being an intellectually lazy piece being produced only for the purpose of being produced, then I’d be f…

I don't think it would be fine.

Someone's actual writing (or talking) is a rich stream of information about who they are, their motives, their preferences, modes of persuasion, and so much more. Undetectable LLM writing essentially allows someone to assume another person's identity. That is not good for anyone except the person trying to pull off a "scam" of some sort, in the broadest sense of that term. It's bad for everyone else, and for society at large.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have a reward function for "human understanding". We reward the appearance of understanding. We define goals that we cannot conceive of reaching without something like understanding happening. There is something happening, but it is alien and counter-intuitive - it makes bizarre mistakes that betray it - and we don't know what it is. I'm pretty sure it is not human understanding.

> We reward the appearance of understanding. Which is exactly what happens with human evolution and development. Sure, we can say LLMs don’t have “human” understanding - which is something we can’t really define anyway - as long as we’re not trying to claim LLMs don’t have understanding at all. The latter is a much higher bar. > We define goals that we cannot conceive of reaching without something like understanding…

I don't think its the same. Evolution dealt with the real world where there were real consequences to poor understanding. The reason LLMs are good at math and programming is because selection is truly based on results, not perceived results.

I think AI models do have something like understanding - I think Leela understands chess and I think Claude understands code in some very real sense, though not a human sense.

But for general writing, you have to understand the world at large and there is no sufficient RL for that. Do you really not see the constant errors that AI make that betrays a lack of understanding the world? I see them so constantly I rarely think about them, I just skim over that slop and move on.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#207

These are all important points and I love the analogy. But there is an even bigger issue with having LLMs write for you: Writing is thinking. Thinking and deciding. There have been many times when I start out writing something substantial - could be an email, a blog post, a software design document, anything - when my own views substantially changed during the writing process. Writing forces you to serialize your tho…

(I work at Anthropic) I agree. I use an LLM to write my code, but I do all of my writing by hand, since it helps me think. It reminds me of the transition over the last year from AI-assisted coding to AI doing all the coding. At first the code output wasn't good enough, and humans read and iterated on the code all day, so the details of the source code mattered. Now, the code is largely high quality and it meets a la…

> wonder if long form writing will go the way of code. You and the AI agree on an outline or other high level representation, then the LLM expands it into a document.

What use is that? I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know.

Who or what is the audience for that sort of long form writing? If it's a human, why would they read it? They'd just give it to an LLM and get the salient points back. If the audience is another LLM, why expand it?

The only use case is an audience of humans who still read and understand, and those people aren't going to be interested in a message when it is not apparent that the sender actually understands the message themselves.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#208
post #39
post #14

I'm a bit skeptical of arguments of the form, "You should not use LLMs without disclosure because LLMs at bad at writing." My reasoning is: If LLMs get better at writing—which I think is extremely likely—will you switch positions and say that now using LLMs without disclosure is A-OK? Surely some people are willing to bite that bullet and say yes. But for most people, my guess is that the answer will remain no. Thus,…

I wonder why people think posting undisclosed LLM writing is any better than posting some other person’s writing uncited. Even if the original author is okay with it, it’s still misleading and dishonest. Or maybe all these people would be fine having someone else write their content for them if it were free and easy? A social media is a reputation economy, but reputation doesn’t work if gaining karma requires no effo…

I think this is the cleanest formulation of why it's wrong that I've heard. It's simply plagiarism and misrepresentation.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the AI agree, but how about you and the team who will eventually read and do code review. Cognitive burden increases marginally with AI assisted coding. This is why we haven't seen big projects(think browsers and browser engines) spawning in the past year.

> but how about you and the team who will eventually read and do code review. Why are you reviewing AI code in detail? Do you also review the assembly output of GCC line by line?

Compilers like GCC are deterministic and the source code already fully defines the behavior. LLMs are non-deterministic and will accept ambiguity, filling in details where you haven’t. These sorts of comparisons aren’t really fair.

In the case of writing, it’s like hiring someone to write a book for you vs. hiring someone to translate a book you wrote into another language. In the first case, you didn’t really define the message for readers, whereas in the second case you did, and the translator is converting that same message for another audience to consume.

Re: Your intellectual fly is open when you use an LLM to author a post (2025)

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the AI agree, but how about you and the team who will eventually read and do code review. Cognitive burden increases marginally with AI assisted coding. This is why we haven't seen big projects(think browsers and browser engines) spawning in the past year.

> but how about you and the team who will eventually read and do code review. Why are you reviewing AI code in detail? Do you also review the assembly output of GCC line by line?

Come on, this is a take we expect from a 1st grader!

Gcc makes maybe 1 mistake ever 2 billion emissions. LLMs make 1 mistake ever 3rd emission.

Post reply on HN