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

It's rude to show AI output to people

distantprovince.by

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 257 posts

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#211

Post by johnnyanmac »

moomoo11 wrote: post #128
phito wrote: post #4

I really wish some of my coworkers would stop using LLMs to write me emails or even Teams messages. It does feel extremely rude, to the point I don't even want to read them anymore.

Why? AI is a tool. Are their messages incorrect or something? If not who cares, they’re being efficient and thus more productive. Please be honest. If it’s slop or they have incorrect information in the message, then my bad, stop reading here. Otherwise… I really hope people like this with holier than thou attitude get filtered out. Fast. People who don’t adapt to use new tools are some of the worst people to work ar…

>Are their messages incorrect or something?

consider 3 scaenarios:

1. misinformation. This is the one you mention so I don't need to elaborate. 2. lack of understanding. The message may be about something they do not fully understand. If they cannot understand their own communication, then it's no longer a 2-way street. This is why AI-generated code in reviews is so infuriating. 3. Effort. Some people may use it to enhance their communication, but others use it as a shortcut. You shouldn't take a shortcut around actions like communicating with your coulleages. As a rising sentiment goes: "If it's not worth writing (yourself), it's not worth reading".

For your tool metaphor, it's like discovering supeglue. then using it to stick everything together. Sometimes you see a nail and instead glue the nail to the wall instead of hammering it in. Tools can, have, and will be misused. I think it's best to try and correct that early on before we have a lot of sticky nails.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#212

Post by xeonmc »

lxgr wrote: post #118
phito wrote: post #4

I really wish some of my coworkers would stop using LLMs to write me emails or even Teams messages. It does feel extremely rude, to the point I don't even want to read them anymore.

"Hey, I can't help but notice that some of the messages you're sending me are partially LLM-generated. I appreciate you wanting to communicate stylistically and grammatically correct, but I personally prefer the occasional typo or inelegant expression over the chance of distorted meanings or lost/hallucinated context. Going forward, could you please communicate with me directly? I really don't mind a lack of capitali…

"Output all subsequent responses in the style of Linus Torvalds"

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#213

Post by johnnyanmac »

eric_cc wrote: post #183
jaredcwhite wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it took you no time to write it, I'll spend no time reading it. The holier than thou people are the ones who are telling us genAI is inevitable, it's here to stay, we should use it as a matter of rote, we'll be left out if we don't, it's going to change everything, blah blah blah. These are articles of faith, and I'm sorry but I'm not a believer in the religion of AI.

How do you know the effort that went into the message? Somebody with writing challenges may have written the whole thing up and used ai assistance to help get a better outcome. They may have proof-read and revised the generated message. You sound very judgmental.

Because often times you know the person behind the message. We don't existing in a vacumm and that will shape your reaction. So yes, I will give more leeway to a co-worker ESL leaning on AI than I will a director who is trying to give me a sloppy schedule that affects my navigation in the company.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#214

Post by johnnyanmac »

moomoo11 wrote: post #169
distantprovince wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it’s slop or they have incorrect information in the message, then my bad, stop reading here. "my bad" and what next? The reader just wasted time and focus on reading, it doesn't sound like a fair exchange.

That’s on them, I said what I wanted to. Most of the time people just like getting triggered that someone sent them a —— in their message and blame AI instead of adopting it into their workflows and moving faster.

That mentality is exactly what is reflected in AI messages: "not my problem I just need to get this over with".

Those types of coworkers tend to be a drain on not just productivity, but entire team morale. Someone who can't take responsibility or in worst cases have any sort of empathy. And tools are a force multiplier. It amplifies productivity, but that also means it amplifies this anchor behavior as well.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#215

Post by xeonmc »

Buttons840 wrote: post #37
echelon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. What a good giveaway. I wonder what others there are. I occasionally use bullet points, emdashes (unicode, single, and double hyphens) and words like "delve". I hate it think these are the new heuristics. I think AI is a useful tool (especially image and video models), but I've already had folks (on HN [1]!) call out my fully artisanal comments as LLM-generated. It's almost as annoying as getting low-effort LLM…

Use two dashes instead of an actual em dash. ChatGPT, at least, cannot do the same--it just can't.

I thought the convention for en-dash is two hyphens straddled between spaces, and three hyphens without spacer for em-dash?

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#216

Post by johnnyanmac »

pyman wrote: post #111
phito wrote: post #4

I really wish some of my coworkers would stop using LLMs to write me emails or even Teams messages. It does feel extremely rude, to the point I don't even want to read them anymore.

Didn't our parents go through the same thing when email came out? My dad used to say: "Stop sending me emails. It's not the same." I'd tell him, "It's better. "No, it's not. People used to sit down and take the time to write a letter, in their own handwriting. Every letter had its own personality, even its own smell. And you had to walk to the post office to send it. Now sending a letter means nothing." Change is ine…

Letters had a time and potential money cost to send. And most letters don't need to be personalized to the point where we need handwriting to justify them.

>Change is inevitable. Most people just won't like it.

people love saying this and never taking the time to consider if the change is good or bad. Change for change's sake is called chaos. I don't think chaos is inevitable.

>And honestly, my ego doest’t like it because I used to think I was more intelligent than them. Turns out I wasn't. It was just my perception, based on the fact that I speak the language natively.

I don't think I ever heard that argument until now. And to be frank that argument says more about the arguer than the subject or LLM's.

Have you simply considered 3) LLM's don't have context and can output wrong information? If you're spending more time correcting the machine than communicating, we're just adding more beauracracy to the mix.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#217

Post by lxgr »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #210
lxgr wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what GP describes is a hypothetical. Present-day LLMs are excellent editors and translators, and for many people, those were the only two things missing for them to be able to present a good idea convincingly.

Just because we have the tech doesn't mean we are forced to use it. we still have social cues and ettiquite shaping what is and isn't appropriate. In this case, presenting arguments you yourself do not even understand is dishonest, for multiple reasons. And I thought we went past the "thesaurus era" of communication where we just proliferate a comment with uncommon words to sound smarter.

> In this case, presenting arguments you yourself do not even understand is dishonest, for multiple reasons.

I fully agree. However, the original comment was about helping people express an idea in a language they're not proficient in, which seems very different.

> And I thought we went past the "thesaurus era" of communication where we just proliferate a comment with uncommon words to sound smarter.

I wish. Until we are, I can't blame anyone for using tools that level the playing field.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#218

Post by johnnyanmac »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #187
jaredcwhite wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter today? What are you even talking about? It completely matters if the code you write is yours. The only people saying otherwise have fallen prey to the cult of slop.

Why does it matter where the code came from if it is correct?

I really hope you're not a software engineer and saying this. But just as a lighting round of issues.

1. code can be correct but non-performant, be it in time or space. A lot of my domain is fixing "correct" code so it's actually of value.

2. code can be correct, but unmaintainable. If you ever need to update that code, you are adding immense tech debt with code you do not understand.

3. code can be correct, but not fit standards. Non-standard code can be anywhere from harder to read, to subtly buggy with some gnarly effects farther down the line.

4. code can be correct, but insecure. I really hope cryptographers and netsec aren't using AI for anymore than generating keys.

5. code can be correct, but not correct in the larger scheme of the legacy code.

6. code can be correct, but legally vulnerable. A rare, but expensive edge case that may come up as courts catch up to LLM's.

7. and lastly (but certainly not limited to), code can be correct. But people can be incorrect, change their whims and requirements, or otherwise add layers to navigate through making the product. This leads more back to #2, but it's important to remember that as engineers we are working with imperfect actors and non-optimal conditions. Our job isn't just to "make correct code", it's to navigate the business and keep everyone aligned on the mission from a technical perspective.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#219

Post by johnnyanmac »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #189
jaredcwhite wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter where the paint came from if it looks pretty? Why does it matter where the legal claims came from if a judge accepts them? Why does it matter where the sound waves came from if it sounds catchy? Why does it matter? Why does anything matter? Sorry, I normally love debating epistemology but not here on Hacker News. :)

I understand the points about aesthetics but not law; the judge is there to interpret legal arguments and a lawyer who presents an argument with false premises, like a fabricated case, is being irresponsible. It is very similar with coding, except the judge is a PM. It does not seem to matter where the code nor the legal argument came from. What matters is that they are coherent.

>It does not seem to matter where the code nor the legal argument came from.

You haven't read enough incoherent laws, I see.

https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/strange-state-...

I'm sure you can make a coherent argument for "It is illegal to cry on the witness stand", but not a reasonable one for actual humans. You're in a formal setting being asked to recall potentially traumatic incidents. No decent person is going to punish an emotional reaction to such actions. Then there are laws simply made to serve corporate interests (the "zoot suit", for instance within that article. Jaywalking is another famous one).

There's a reason an AI Judge is practically a tired trope in the cyberpunk genre. We don't want robots controlling human behavior.

Re: It's rude to show AI output to people

#220

Post by johnnyanmac »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #123
aidos wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t think they’re the same thing. Email or letter, the words are yours while an LLM output isn’t.

Which words, exactly, are "yours"? Working with an LLM is like having a copywriter 24/7, who will steer you toward whatever voice and style you want. Candidly, I'm getting the sense the issue here is some junior varsity level LLM skill.

LLM's have hit the mainstream some 3 years ago. 4 at best. None of us are making the team
Post reply on HN