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

Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 419 posts

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#301

Post by mattigames »

layer8 wrote: post #263
mattigames wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones paying are in their vast majority the most selfish of them all, for example it would be reasonable to say that Jeff Bezos its one of the most selfish people on the planet, so at the end it doesn't boil down to "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat" but more like "Well I can cheat, get away with it and the victim is just another cheater, so therefore I should cheat"

Two wrongs don’t make a right, and it seems weird to me you‘d want to work for such a most-selfish cheater in the first place.

Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and many many others do everything in their power to reduce costs including paying less taxes, which includes using tax havens and tax loopholes that they themselves make sure to keep open by "lobbying" politicians, so effectively to work in general means to work for mostly cheaters and there is no way to avoid it, sure you can stay unemployed and stay clean of the moral corruption that entails living in a capitalist system but many don't consider that an option; and is not like buying from them is any better morally speaking, for the exact same reasons.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#302

Post by necovek »

mightysashiman wrote: post #132
TeMPOraL wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Growing your own muscle mass" is an artificial goal that exists because of tools. Our bodies evolved under the background assumption that daily back-breaking labor is necessary for survival, and rely on it to stay in good operating conditions. We've since all but eliminated most of that labor for most people - so now we're forced to engage in otherwise pointless activity called "exercise" that's physically hard on p…

Said no one with ever with a even remote knowledge in healthy benefits of fitness.

Fitness does not equal physical exercise.

It could be a simple lifestyle that makes you "fit" (lots of walking, working a not-too-demanding physical job, a physical hobby, biking around...).

The parent post is saying that technological advance has removed the need for physical activity to survive, but all of the gym rats have come out of the woodwork to complain how we are all going to die if we don't hit the gym, pronto.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#304

Post by knuppar »

blagie wrote: post #260
wepple wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge miss on the gun analogy. The likes of NRA are pushing for 50-state constitutional carry. Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. There’s probably actually some other hidden factor though, like the venue not allowing it. Edit: FWIW those late night TV shows are nothing but rage bait low brow “comedy” that divides the country. But the above remain…

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes,…

>And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument.

Can you give me one example of a valid "reasonable self-defence argument"? Legit question.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#305

Post by necovek »

eviks wrote: post #74
0x1062 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.

It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"

Incidentally, there are things like these: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6104107/

Your favourite online store is full of devices that'd help there, and they are used in physical therapy too.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#306

Post by toolz »

numbsafari wrote: post #209
blagie wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It reminded me of the time Roy Wood Jr visited a pro-gun rally where they argued guns make people safe, while simultaneously asking people to not carry guns because they were worried about safety. The cognitive dissonance is worth pointing out. Well, no. It's irony, but it's only cognitive dissonance in a comedy show which misses the nuance. Most pro-gun organizations are heavily into gun safety. The message is tha…

These are the same people that insist we arm elementary school teachers and expect those teachers to someday pull the trigger on a child instead of having proper gun laws. There is no irony.

If you think proper gun laws would keep guns away from evil people in the US, please explain to me why the war against illegal drugs in the US has been losing since the day it started.

Sure, some places in the world can successfully limit gun access. Those places aren't close and even bordered by the most active cartels in the world.

Just as a fun thought exercise, consider that to grow the plant necessary to produce just a single drug, cocaine, for the country, every year. It takes at least 300,000 acres, or roughly the size of los angeles. That's after decades of optimizations to reduce the amount of land needed. It's also only for one drug among a vast number that are regularly consumed in the US.

In relation, you can 3d print guns at home. Successful builds have been made from some of the cheapest 3d printers you can find.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#308

Post by FilosofumRex »

latexr wrote: post #166
radu_floricica wrote: post #115

I'll be the contrarian and say that I don't find anything wrong with this, and if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the application process. They do encourage use of AI, but they're asking nicely to write my own texts for the application - that's a reasonable request, and I'd have nothing against complying. sshine reply above is coming from a very conflictual mindset. "Can I still use…

> I don't find anything wrong with this It’s not about being wrong, it’s about being ironic. We have LLMs shoved down our throats as this new way to communicate—we are encouraged to ask them to make our writing “friendlier” or “more professional”—and then one of the companies creating such a tool asks the very people most interested in it to not use it for the exact purpose we’ve been told it’s good at. They are aski…

It's sardonic rather than ironic - irony is sarcastic humor devised to highlight a contradiction or hypocrisy; while sardonic is disdainful, bitter and scornful.

It'd have been ironic if Anthropic had asked the applicant not to use AI for the sake of originality and authenticity; but if the applicant felt compelled to do so, then it better rock and wow them to hire the applicant sight unseen.

It's sardonic because Anthropic is implying use of AI on them is an indication of fraud, deceit, or incompetence; but it's a form of efficiency, productivity or cleverness when used by them on the job!

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#309

Post by necovek »

logicchains wrote: post #91
eviks wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"

When you go for a job as a forklift operator, nobody asks you to demonstrate how you can manually carry a load of timber.

That much is true, but I've seen a forklift operator face a situation where pallet of products fell apart and heavy items ended up on the floor. Guess who was in charge of picking them up and manually shelving them?

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#310

Post by necovek »

skissane wrote: post #158
logicchains wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim was that it's lazy to use a tool as a substitute for learning how to do something yourself. But when the tool entirely obviates the need for doing the task yourself, you don't need to be able to do it yourself to do the job. It doesn't matter if a forklift driver isn't strong enough to manually carry a load, similarly once AI is good enough it won't matter if a developer doesn't know how to write all the co…

> once AI is good enough it won't matter if a developer doesn't know how to write all the code an AI wrote for them, what matters is that they can produce code that fulfills requirements, regardless of how that code is produced. Once AI is that good, the developer won't have a job any more.

The whole question is if the AI will ever get that good?

All evidence so far points to no (just like with every tool — farmers are still usually strong men even if they've got tractors that are thousands of times stronger than any human), but that still leaves a bunch of non-great programmers out of a job.

Post reply on HN