31–40 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don’t understand why not. I’m not a natural prose writer, but (I felt that) these ideas were worth putting out there. I posted on HN largely to get feedback.
As someone who has mostly ignored the AI progression it is interesting to see. And a bit bewildering.
I think most of this is good stuff but I disagree with not letting Claude touch tests or migrations at all. Handing writing tests from scratch is the part I hate the most. Having an LLM do a first pass on tests which I add to and adjust as I see fit has been a big boon on the testing front. It seems the difference between me and the author is I believe whether code was generated by an LLM or not the human still takes…
True but, in my experience, a few major pitfalls that happened: 1. We ran into really bad minefields when we tried to come back to manually edit the generated tests later on. Claude tended to mock everything because it didn’t have context about how we run services, build environments, etc. 2. And this was the worst, all of the devs on the team including me got realllyy lazy with testing. Bugs in production significan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don’t understand why not. I’m not a natural prose writer, but (I felt that) these ideas were worth putting out there. I posted on HN largely to get feedback.
I use AI to help craft technical messages to different audiences and get various perspectives on my ideas and questions. It's a tool that's given me more insight into other perspectives than anything else, and it's helped me make some excellent slides.
Executives and senior leadership really need things at different levels. They are abstracting domains like we extract functions. Then there are the technical leaders, who this speaks to. I shared this article with my VP and peers. I expect it will be too much for some, but it remains approachable.
It's not all roses though, I tried using various LLMs to help me draft a personal message and it left me feeling remarkably conflicted. It was my message, but it lost my voice, even when just used to reach my niece's "audience" . I haven't found out how to use it and still allow for my creative emotional expression.
I don't use it for emails, because it still feels professionally dishonest for me; for some reason, presentations don't. I'm bad at them and it helps.
One more thing: I instruct LLMs to not let me meander like this.
Honest question: approx what percent of the post was human vs machine written?
I’d say around ~40% me, the ideating, editing, citations, and images are all mine; rest Opus 4 :) I typically try to also include the original Claude chat’s link in the post but it seems like Claude doesn’t allow sharing chats with deep research used in them. Update : here’s an older chatgpt conversation while preparing this: https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8...
We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves.
It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another for “60%” of an article to be LLM-generated. For that reason I’m having to bury the post.
Edit: I changed this decision after further information and reflection. See this comment for further details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719
But as a human, I do like the CLAUDE.md file. It's like documentation for dev reasoning and choices. I like that.
Is this faster than old style codebases but with developers having the LLM chat open as they work? Seems like this ups the learning curve. The code here doesn't look very approachable.
One of the exciting things to me about the ai agents is how they push and allow you to build processes that we’ve always known were important but were frequently not prioritized in the face of shipping the system. You can use how uncomfortable you are with the ai doing something as a signal that you need to invest in systematic verification of that something. As a for instance in the link, the team could build a syst…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d say around ~40% me, the ideating, editing, citations, and images are all mine; rest Opus 4 :) I typically try to also include the original Claude chat’s link in the post but it seems like Claude doesn’t allow sharing chats with deep research used in them. Update : here’s an older chatgpt conversation while preparing this: https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8...
Thanks for being transparent about this, but we’re not wanting substantially LLM-generated content on HN. We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves. It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for being transparent about this, but we’re not wanting substantially LLM-generated content on HN. We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves. It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another…
I completely understand. Just to clarify, when I said it was ~40%, I didn’t mean the content was written by Claude/ChatGPT but that I took its help in deep research and writing the first drafts. The ideas, all of the code examples, the original CLAUDE.md files, the images, citations, etc are all mine.
Edit: On reflection, given your explanation of your use of AI and given another comment [1] I replied to below, I don't think this post is disqualified after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d say around ~40% me, the ideating, editing, citations, and images are all mine; rest Opus 4 :) I typically try to also include the original Claude chat’s link in the post but it seems like Claude doesn’t allow sharing chats with deep research used in them. Update : here’s an older chatgpt conversation while preparing this: https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8...
Thanks for being transparent about this, but we’re not wanting substantially LLM-generated content on HN. We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves. It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another…
Tag it, let users decide how they want to vote.
Aside: meta: If you're speaking on behalf of HN you should indicate that in the post (really with a marker outside of the comment).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for being transparent about this, but we’re not wanting substantially LLM-generated content on HN. We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves. It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another…
Surely you're missing the wood for the trees here - isn't the point of asking for no 'AI' to avoid low effort slop? This is a relatively high value post about adopting new practices and the human-LLM integration. Tag it, let users decide how they want to vote. Aside: meta: If you're speaking on behalf of HN you should indicate that in the post (really with a marker outside of the comment).
Regarding your other suggestion: it's been the case ever since HN started 18 years ago that moderators/modcomments don't have any special designation. This is due to our preference for simple design and an aversion to seeming separate from the community. We trust that people will work it out and that has always worked well here.