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

341–350 of 632 posts

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#341

Post by plumbees »

Ever since my boss has transitioned to doing code reviews by AI and off loading his brain fully to AI, I could just use my AI to do the same to fix the things and I no longer have to deal with petty design arguments. I no longer have to deal with stylistic problems and that's great. When somebody offloads their communication to AI, it's easy to deal with. Meet with the same energy. Let the AI waste their time in the communication because the lack of effort on one side deserves the same type of communication-style.

As I wrote this i switch to the phrase communication-style because I realize that when he does his code review it's literally just a quick pass and a paste, but unfortunately when I do AI code reviews I review every single review item and push back individually on each item, research the items, write tests against what the review says and basically curate the code review I give out, which takes me 3 hours and then I have a boss angrily messaging me asking why the code review isn't done.

So on the one end I've managed to reduce toxicity in the reviews, but the tradeoff is toxicity in the expectation of a rubber stamp.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#342

Post by JSR_FDED »

Here for once is something HR can actually do to be useful, make an internal campaign around do’s and don’ts of AI in the workplace. They can add how clients don’t pay us to type things in a box for them either.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#343

Post by jeremyjh »

gwd wrote: post #47
seer wrote: post #35

I’m not convinced tbh, a lot of my colleagues messages are “x broken” or “I do y” … no context whatsoever, and then I have to coax their context for making these decisions. Since people started using Claude now I get full context of everything… might be too much sure, but to be honest over-communicating seems better than under-communicating - sure it’s boring and tedious but that shifts the blockage to me. Otherwise…

> Since people started using Claude now I get full context of everything… And I think this is where one key argument on the page itself I think fails: > The person on the other side has the same tools you do. Yes, the person on the other side has Claude; but in many cases, their Claude doesn't have the same context as my Claude. Saying, "This thing happened in an area of the code I don't have any expertise in. Below…

The problem is when all we get is the output, we don't know if their context is even valid. If they don't demonstrate any human understanding of their message content, we can't really take that on faith. Especially once we've got them copy pasting blindly in the past.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#344

Post by dec0dedab0de »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #319
jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. The underlying problem here is that communication is hard; especially if it's not face to face. People can't read your mind o…

> what’s the equivalent of “google it yourself” these days? Do you actually say that to people? Edit: i’ve hit the comment limit per given time, but all I have to say is “what have you found so far?” And “Google it yourself” are radically different responses man. The former is far more reasonable, it shows you are willing to be helpful and is a productive question. The other is just rude and implies your time is too…

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+people+say+google+it+yourself

Thanks for reminding me of lmgtfy. We used to say that all the time 20 years ago, and it was way politer than how the people older than us spoke. It took some getting used to, but I really miss the hilariously mean bluntness of the IT/tech world.

In retrospect, I think it was just a bunch of people who grew up breathing in leaded gas fumes, with undiagnosed mental disorders. But I miss it just the same.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#345

Post by RIMR »

>The person on the other side has the same tools you do.

No, they don't. I have access to heaps of raw information about customers and their systems that I can easily provide to my AI. That AI can also dig through all the communications we've had with other customers who have asked us similar questions, and draft a coherent on-brand response.

I often paste AI-generated responses with significant success, and all I have to do is make sure the answer isn't wrong and doesn't include sensitive info, and to remove a few extra adjectives and em-dashes that I don't want.

If the customer has access to my tools, that's a critical security incident. They contact me because I have access to info they don't, and unlike and AI, I can guarantee my response is valid.

As for people who copy/paste AI generated text blindly: That's firable in my books.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#348

Post by altcognito »

OptionOfT wrote: post #322
jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. The underlying problem here is that communication is hard; especially if it's not face to face. People can't read your mind o…

Because part of the answer is learning people's experiences.

(I agree but would add...) They should ask for it if that's the case. Typically if you're asking in a forum, you ought to state the research you've done up front as not just a courtesy, but a clarification of what you've seen/tried. Otherwise, you can just look lazy.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#350

Post by RIMR »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #335
ako wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the response of AI is sufficient, why would i retype it in my own words? Just a waste of time. Most of what i have AI generate is based on my words and input anyways. I'll often write a draft note, and then have AI generate multiple formats, e.g., technical wording, marketing wording, management wording. Almost like taking raw content and using AI to rephrase it for specific channels.

if the response of AI is sufficient to do your job, why do you have a job?

Because the AI isn't autonomous, and cannot vet it's own outputs.

If an AI answers a question perfectly, I'll go with it. But if my boss fires me for no longer being needed because of the AI, good luck to him and his new idiot employee.

Post reply on HN