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

251–257 of 257 posts

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

#251

Post by jaredcwhite »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #249
johnnyanmac wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a straw man. Consider that from my perspective, each of your points amount to saying "code can be correct, but incorrect" (take a look at number 5) and you may realize that your argument does not make any sense: 1. If code is "correct" but non-performant when it needs to be performant, then it's not correct. 2. If code is "correct" but unmaintainable when it needs to be maintainable, then it's not correct. 3.…

I agree with the overall point you're making in this comment…except that I don't think this is what "correct" means in the way that both I and the other person who replied thought you meant.

We took you to mean correct as in, given the right inputs, you get the expected outputs. And in that case, our objections do apply. In addition, if correct does mean overall fit-to-purpose the way you are suggesting here, then by gosh my points stands and no code generated by AI is correct! (Because of a variety of factors outside of simply "does the output of this code indicate that it seems to be working")

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

#252

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #251
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straw man. Consider that from my perspective, each of your points amount to saying "code can be correct, but incorrect" (take a look at number 5) and you may realize that your argument does not make any sense: 1. If code is "correct" but non-performant when it needs to be performant, then it's not correct. 2. If code is "correct" but unmaintainable when it needs to be maintainable, then it's not correct. 3.…

I agree with the overall point you're making in this comment…except that I don't think this is what "correct" means in the way that both I and the other person who replied thought you meant. We took you to mean correct as in, given the right inputs, you get the expected outputs. And in that case, our objections do apply. In addition, if correct does mean overall fit-to-purpose the way you are suggesting here, then by…

> if correct does mean overall fit-to-purpose the way you are suggesting here, then by gosh my points stands and no code generated by AI is correct

This is patently false per my experience generating code with LLMs. It was not a lot; it changed one line to update a global variable to a new value per my request. It was exactly the “correct” change per the stated instructions. (Okay, not exactly because it added an extra new line that wasn’t there and which I didn’t want.)

It is certainly a fallacy to say that “no code generated by an AI is correct”. Unless you are making a point about the semantics of what is making the code “correct” (as in, is it the human reviewer or AI generator?), my point is that, in theory, the human reviews the code and submits changes for further review. The code was still generated by an AI and it can still be precisely “correct” for a given intended change.

It is understandable that you misunderstood my meaning because I was rather unclear about it (though “correct” is still the closest word I can think of to mean what I mean). However, it’s a bit wild that you say you do understand that meaning before turning around to say that it actually supports your point with a vague claim of a “variety of factors”. I actually get the feeling, based on this response, that your argument is effectively refuted by the point I raised. I’m willing to keep an open mind if you’d like to show me that I’m wrong; maybe I’m just missing something.

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

#253

Post by lucyjojo »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #140
moomoo11 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prompt is theirs.

Then just send me the prompt.

as long as there are people and HR out there screeching "unprofessional", why take the risk?

writing mails/messages used to take me a long time. now i have a "make it professional" llm window, let it do its magic and edit out the most egregious stuff. it does 80-90% of the job.

that said, sometimes it fails spectacularly, so i just write by hand.

so.. many... hours... saved.

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

#254

Post by lucyjojo »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #186
eric_cc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you sound very ableist. Why should we expect people who may have a cognitive disability of some kind to cloak that with technology, rather than us giving them the grace to communicate how they like on their terms?

because expecting people to be gracious goes against reality.

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

#255

Post by phito »

herval wrote: post #72
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.

have you tried sharing that feedback with them? one of my reports started responding to questions with AI Slop. I asked if he was actually writing those sentences (he wasn't), so I gave him that exact feedback - it felt to me like he wasn't even listening, when he clearly jut copy-pasted clearly AI responses. Thankfully he stopped doing it. Of course as models get better at writing, it'll be harder and harder to tell…

I did, they just shrugged and called me a luddite.

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

#256

Post by miningape »

thunky wrote: post #200
ivanjermakov wrote: post #15

Related: I'd rather read the prompt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43888803

Write a response with these points: - agree - but people expect text, not bullets - cultural issue

"I agree but people expect text, not bullets. It's a cultural issue in communication."

I added 3 characters more than your prompt.

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

#257

Post by lukebechtel »

accrual wrote: post #119
lukebechtel wrote: post #92

> For the longest time, writing was more expensive than reading. If you encountered a body of written text, you could be sure that at the very least, a human spent some time writing it down. The text used to have an innate proof-of-thought, a basic token of humanity.

> "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one." Quote is from Mark Twain and perfectly encapsulates the sentiment. Writing something intended for another person to read was previously an effort. Some people were good at it, some were less good. But now, everyone can generate some median-level effort.

one of my favorite quotes!
Post reply on HN