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

Don't paste the AI, please

dontpastetheai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 632 posts

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#281

Post by whstl »

nchmy wrote: post #249
whstl wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you’re defending something that nobody here has a problem with. Using AI to rephrase things is perfectly fine.

What? This entire thread and the OP and comment I originally replied to is people saying that Ai shouldn't be used for writing...

I was agreeing! You said it yourself: "Vibe writing vs AI assisted writing".

The people complaining are talking about vibe-writing or heavily-AI-assisted writing.

EDIT: My point is, most people taking the "anti-AI" stance here wouldn't have a problem with Grammarly or AI to double-check spelling. It's a gradient.

EDIT 2: I wrote a lot of stuff without double-checking. Just editing to clarify what I mean. :D

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#282

Post by croon »

nchmy wrote: post #224
croon wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming an LLM writes better than me.

No, you were claiming that no one has ever used Ai to help produce better writing. I was objecting to that, because it is an absurd statement. Ai could have told you that if you asked.

> No, you were claiming that no one has ever used Ai to help produce better writing. I was objecting to that, because it is an absurd statement. Ai could have told you that if you asked.

Maybe take your own advice and ask your LLM if I did claim that.

This is what I claimed:

> Yes; if I could wrangle Claude into communicating exactly as I would have, the practical difference is of course not observable. But that's never happened, and I've had an enterprise license at work for years.

This means that if I get Claude/LLM output, I would need to edit it/write myself to make it correct/better/distilled into relevant parts. I do not get LLM output I would want to post as is without numerous roundtrips, at which point vi is faster.

You then reply to claim that as a skill issue, while also later on stating that you iterate over it or take over a draft to edit it, which I then point out is a contradiction.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#283

Post by klm127 »

I recently wrote an analysis for a proposal my company was working on.

I did not use any AI. I had a couple conversations with agents while mulling some approaches, but they never edited my work nor did I have any chat open while I wrote. Every word was my own.

I notified my other stakeholders - "here's my analysis, none of it was written with ai". It sounds silly to say, and I worried others could take it as an attack. But I needed to communicate "This is a long document but its actually worth reading".

I liked what I wrote. The final author of the proposal liked what I wrote. All of my ideas made it in to the proposal. We landed the contract. Its a nice chunk of $ for us.

Its still worth putting the hours in.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#285

Post by jbs789 »

I find it shocking this needs to be said.

Of all you’re doing is copying and pasting anyone else’s stuff, then you’re adding little/no value. You should be paid nothing.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#286

Post by fn-mote »

blensor wrote: post #244
mscbuck wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to say, "Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else" is something that I don't think I really internalized until you wrote it in that way. Which I think is evidence of what you are talking about.

Tangentially I also hate if someone answers with a voice message. I can understand that there are situations where you just can't type out the answer and those exceptions are of course fine, but if you post a voice message or god forbid a video message in a group chat you are forcing everyone to take the time and sit through it.

Fortunately, if they send it as a text message or voicemail, I get automatic transcription.

Too bad that’s not more universal.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#287

Post by biztos »

blensor wrote: post #244
mscbuck wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to say, "Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else" is something that I don't think I really internalized until you wrote it in that way. Which I think is evidence of what you are talking about.

Tangentially I also hate if someone answers with a voice message. I can understand that there are situations where you just can't type out the answer and those exceptions are of course fine, but if you post a voice message or god forbid a video message in a group chat you are forcing everyone to take the time and sit through it.

The WhatsApp voice message is very common in Spain. I always find it jarring when I'm there, mostly because I'm not used to it, but also because it seems to defeat the purpose of the messaging app: I can't listen to your voice message on the bus, for instance.

It's so normalized there that I wonder whether this is a particularly Spanish habit. Maybe there are a bunch of countries where people routinely leave each other voice recordings on WhatsApp/Messenger/etc, and I just haven't been to them yet.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#288

Post by xgulfie »

fragmede wrote: post #161
ra wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sure it’s boring and tedious but that shifts the blockage to me I think that's the key. Generally people would rather not receive slop because the receiver has no idea how much thought the sender invested in the communication. In your example, the more context the better. I think there's an interesting nuance there.

> the receiver has no idea how much thought the sender invested in the communication. That's an interesting thought. The message can have metadata that says the sender's spent 1/5/10/60/120 minutes or some other metric of how much thinking over the communication happened. Just need a way to monitor people's thoughts and digitize them to make that happen.

please god no

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#289

Post by Therenas »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #277

Here's what Claude said: There's a delicious irony in pasting dontpastetheai.com into an AI chat, and I choose to believe that's deliberate. It's well written though. The parody answer in the middle is the sharpest part — "this mild Google search you could've done in 3 seconds" — because it nails the exact texture of unedited model output: the fake enthusiasm, the numbered scaffolding, the conclusion that concludes n…

Jesus that feels like it has even more claude-isms than usual.
Post reply on HN