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

Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#31

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lxgr wrote: post #28
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #3

> [AI/LLM writes] why I made the decisions I did When one thinks about human decision making, there are at least two classes of decisions: 1. decisions made with our "fast" minds: ducking out of the way of an incoming object, turning around when someone calls our name ... a whole host of decisions made without much if any conscious attention, and that if you asked the human who made those decisions you wouldn't get m…

Does it really matter how the LLM got to a (correct) conclusion? As long as the explanation is sound as well and I can follow it, I don't really care if the internal process looked quite different, as long as it's not outright deceptive.

I'm just quoting the author of TFA, who did in fact appear to want periodic explanations of how their "agent" arrived at its decisions.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#32

Post by kelseyfrog »

sunrunner wrote: post #30
kelseyfrog wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all productive human labor is replaced by AI we have larger problems than where we'll find the money.

I guess we all just need to come up with a shared definition for ‘productive’ first then? Shouldn’t be too difficult.

What if we just use "that which is exchanged for money"?

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#33

Post by jaredcwhite »

This essay falls under a growing category I call "start off sounding like you agree with critics of GenAI, then subtly attempt to undercut all of the power of their arguments."

The best way to engage with these sorts of articles is to completely ignore all stated advice and move on. There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft, the entire analogy is completely absurd.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#34

Post by jaredcwhite »

fragmede wrote: post #20
arm32 wrote: post #4

You're really rizzing up the whole "AI can do almost everything better than humans" point. Is there a chance that your investments are causing you to sensationalize things a bit? Because I can promise you, AI can only do better the things that I have absolutely no skill in.

If you need to believe that everyone's only in it for their investment portfolio, for you to sleep well at night, I mean, you do you, but recognize that that's a giant balloon of copium you're huffing.

In fact it's an excellent shorthand. I make it a point to look up what all the AI boosters endlessly posting puff pieces on LinkedIn actually do for a living, and almost without exception it's someone who is directly attempting to profit off of exponential slop machine growth. Or as I like to say:

"The future of money is gold obtained from prospecting." –VP of Shovels, ShovelsCorp.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#35

Post by danielrm26 »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #33

This essay falls under a growing category I call "start off sounding like you agree with critics of GenAI, then subtly attempt to undercut all of the power of their arguments." The best way to engage with these sorts of articles is to completely ignore all stated advice and move on. There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft, the entire analogy is…

You do realize that the entire point of the post is to be cautious of AI, right?

And to make sure that you have your own personal goals separate from it, and that if you're getting help from it you need to make sure it's in line with those goals.

Right?

What about that do you disagree with?

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#36

Post by danielrm26 »

ab227 wrote: post #10

This is a great framework for self-development, but I wonder if the Job vs. Gym analogy is a bit premature. There seems to be a level of Silicon Valley optimism here that assumes AI already surpasses human capability in these creative areas. From my perspective, AI only outperforms in areas where the human hasn't developed a real craft. Is it possible that the current hype is causing us to undervalue the unique quali…

How many senior developers do you need to tell you that they've been vastly surpassed (in coding) by AI before you believe them? The creator of Claude Code just said he's not opened an IDE in a while. He was a principal engineer.

And why would you think this would be the only place that'll happen?

I agree there are things they can still do better than AI, but coding isn't one of them.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#37

Post by danielrm26 »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #33

This essay falls under a growing category I call "start off sounding like you agree with critics of GenAI, then subtly attempt to undercut all of the power of their arguments." The best way to engage with these sorts of articles is to completely ignore all stated advice and move on. There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft, the entire analogy is…

> There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft...

- Coming up with names for cities in a role-playing game you're making - Summarizing an idea that you're writing about - Doing research for an article - Brainstorming character names - Creating an aesthetic for a new website for a customer - Etc, etc.

I could go on for days with these examples. And so could any AI.

Pre-2022 ALL these were done 100% by a human.

Now they're not. Now creative people are using AI to help them massively with tons of these. So, yes, the separation needs to happen there as well.

For example, maybe you say, I'll never use AI to help me name characters. Or to come up with plot lines. Or whatever.

That's a Gym vs. Job distinction.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#38

Post by danielrm26 »

blargey wrote: post #27

Lurking between the lines in arguments about AI writing/code/art is that whether or not an activity is "gym" or "job" is often in the eye of the beholder. People who never "went to the gym" in a field are all too eager to brush off the entire design space as pure Job that can and should be fully delegated to AI posthaste.

That's why the whole thing has to start with you identifying what you consider core to yourself.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#39

Post by danielrm26 »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #11
davnicwil wrote: post #5

It's an interesting one. We'll have to discover where to draw that line in education and training. It is an incredible accelerant in top-down 'theory driven' learning, which is objectively good, I think we can all agree. Like, it's a better world having that than not having it. But at the same time there's a tension between that and the sort of bottom-up practice-driven learning that's pretty inarguably required for…

How I see it, LLMs aren't really much different than existing information sources. I can watch video tutorials and lectures all day, but if I don't sit down and practice applying what I see, very little of it will stick long term. The biggest difference I see is, pre-LLM search, I spent a lot more time looking for a good source for what I was looking for, and I probably picked up some information along the way.

Definitely. We have to find ways to replicate this.

One thing I've noticed is that I've actually learned a lot more code about things I didn't understand before. Just because I built guardrails to make sure that they are built exactly the perfect way that I like them to be built. And then I've watched my AI build it that way dozens of times now. Start to finish. So now I've just seen all the steps so many times that now I understand a lot more than I did before.

This sort of thing is definitely possible, but we have to do it on purpose.

Re: Keep the Robots Out of the Gym

#40

Post by jaredcwhite »

danielrm26 wrote: post #37
jaredcwhite wrote: post #33

This essay falls under a growing category I call "start off sounding like you agree with critics of GenAI, then subtly attempt to undercut all of the power of their arguments." The best way to engage with these sorts of articles is to completely ignore all stated advice and move on. There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft, the entire analogy is…

> There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft... - Coming up with names for cities in a role-playing game you're making - Summarizing an idea that you're writing about - Doing research for an article - Brainstorming character names - Creating an aesthetic for a new website for a customer - Etc, etc. I could go on for days with these examples. And s…

"Now they're not." ???

For me, there isn't the slightest difference from before 2022 and after 2022, since I continually choose to boycott genAI services, and as an activist in the Pro-Craft movement, encourage others to do the same.

Post reply on HN