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

AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

rickmanelius.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 729 posts

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#321

Post by xdennis »

cheschire wrote: post #110
venzaspa wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are posting on this very website and commenting on Reddit using AI. I can't get myself into the headspace that would enable this behaviour. What exactly is the point of not engaging in conversation yourself and getting a bot to post it for you on an free platform. Crazy.

What drives people to cheat at competitive games? I imagine it’s the same genes.

As a previous massive cheater in RPG games (when a was young and it was easy to write your own tools) the reason to cheat is because many games (especially RPGs) have bullshit mechanics. You have to perform a lot of repetitive stuff to get ahead. Cheating is seen as honorable because it's about getting back at a system which forces you into unfair circumstances (this is akin to corruption/graft in real life).

In my opinion, this is not the same as people who use AI comment bots.

Of course, other cheaters had other reasons, but the few I was friends with had similar motivations. (Actually, a few just created tools because they enjoyed creating tools, not so much actually using them.)

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#322

Post by sailfast »

gortok wrote: post #36

The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six that it's not universally offensive and reviling to post an AI-generated response to another person. If I'm reading something on the internet, I'm either reading it to learn, or I'm reading it to be persuaded. If I wanted the LLM to teach me (thank you, no), I would ask an LLM. I'm reading your website/newsletter/email because I…

It is offensive and reviling. But people do it anyway. People are lazy. And often don’t care about you, the reader.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#323

Post by Planktonne »

supermatt wrote: post #289
Planktonne wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more. I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.

> I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages. Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.

I think you're conflating a couple of different things here.

1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to.

2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less valid, removing intention. That's thoughtless.

You do not need a filter; it does not make your writing better, it makes it more pallid.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#324

Post by tom_ »

xdennis wrote: post #313
gortok wrote: post #36

The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six that it's not universally offensive and reviling to post an AI-generated response to another person. If I'm reading something on the internet, I'm either reading it to learn, or I'm reading it to be persuaded. If I wanted the LLM to teach me (thank you, no), I would ask an LLM. I'm reading your website/newsletter/email because I…

> The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six It astonishes me that in 2026 AD, people still like to pretend that our calendar is not based on Christ's supposed birth. Christians have no problem calling days after pagan gods (Wednesday = Woden's day, Thursday = Thor's day, etc), but for some reason we have to pretend like the calendar isn't based on the Christian god.

It's typically referred to as CE to indicate the speaker's personal lack of belief in the divinity of Jesus, that might be implied by using the term anno domini. Nobody is under any illusion about whose birth began this era.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#325

Post by qarl2 »

supermatt wrote: post #308
minimaxir wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many different people in this HN submission have given you similar feedback: given that, you should consider that your priors are not correct.

There are also many others stating the same things - and they are getting flagged and downvoted for it. Just because those of you who disagree are more vocal, downvote and flag-happy doesn't make you right.

HE WOULD NEVER FLAG SOMEONE JUST FOR DISAGREEING!

He would make up an excuse that is entirely untrue and then flag them.

Oh wait, I'm thinking of my last encounter with him.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#327

Post by LPisGood »

BeetleB wrote: post #316
LPisGood wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re overestimating how easy it is to just declare I won’t be doing my job.

I am actually asking you to do your job. Pre-LLMs, if I got comments that were difficult to read in a code review, that PR isn't getting merged until they fix it. So: Review the docs. If it's that bad, just say "I don't understand these comments" and send it back.

What I’m trying to say is that they can generate many more hundreds of lines of code and comments than I can reasonably review. Maybe the comments do make sense they’re just five lines longer than they ought to be. Multiply that by 20 times and then add in 150 lines of documentation that is not technically incorrect.

Not to mention that the response to each review will come with its own set of new comments and new documentation. The ability of people to write things has exploded tenfold. You can’t out review the slop.

Every PR can be rewritten and re-architected on a whim.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#329

Post by ModernMech »

robrtsql wrote: post #175
ModernMech wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how much time do you deem a minimum amount for someone to spend on some unit of work before you're willing to read it? And what technologies are allowed -- are word processors allowed or does it have to be done with a writing instrument like a pencil? What about spell check? Do you care if they had done their research with a Wikipedia or do you prefer card catalog for the really important work?

I'm not sure. Another way to think about it: how _little_ time is someone able to spend on something where you will still be interested in reading it? If someone tells their unattended LLM agent to create a blog, write whatever content will maximize banner ad revenue, and then share each post on Hacker News, would you read it? What if the content is actually interesting in your opinion?

For me, the amount of time could be very minimal. A person can splash some paint on a canvas, tape a banana to a wall, press a shutter, or write 14 syllables and if it's well considered then that can be enough. Time spent just doesn't play into it for me, unless that's actually part of the point.

> If someone tells their unattended LLM agent to create a blog, write whatever content will maximize banner ad revenue, and then share each post on Hacker News, would you read it? What if the content is actually interesting in your opinion?

Yes, I think if one of that content had a headline that interested me I would definitely click on it, because that's already happened!

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#330

Post by tessierashpool »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #276
Insimwytim wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are some, who couldn't be a part of the public conversation, precisely because of they inability to add anything to said conversation. LLMs enables them to post (or, rather, paste) something, in an attempt to trick others into believing they do have something to say. They think they sound smart now, because LLMs are "very much the “stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”"[1] So now we are flooded…

Wow! that comment you linked speaks to me. I was watching a review video for a game yesterday that was so obviously written by AI it was actually painful to listen to. I started reading the comments and there were several people praising this Youtuber on their great use of metaphor. Literally "subbed because you're such an amazing writer." It actually shook me to my core. If those were real people making those commen…

> If those were real people making those comments, there is no hope for us.

they probably weren't.

Post reply on HN