Live data from Hacker News

Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

noslopgrenade.com

371–380 of 453 posts

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#371
post #5

> Should we use Redis or Memcached? Couldn't they have used an example aimed at a broader audience? I'm in IT but even I barely know what Redis or Memcached is about (never used either).

I mean, they're not exactly obscure. And if you're curious you can just read the wikipedia pages (or ask a magic robot, I suppose, if you _must_). What universal example that everyone would know were you thinking of?

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#373
I'm verbose, and no one was ever interested in anything I ever had to say before. And, they certainly wouldn't be now if I used AI to do it.

These days I only bother commenting if I really feel I need to get something off my chest, but I don't assume anyone gives a shit. I frequently just delete my responses. I don't generally feel anyone needs what I'm saying.

It takes a bit of self-awareness to realize that no one is interested in what you have to say, so don't bother. And, I think it takes twice as much self-awareness to realize that they certainly don't care about what a bot has to say, unless they're the ones asking.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#374

I'm verbose, and no one was ever interested in anything I ever had to say before. And, they certainly wouldn't be now if I used AI to do it. These days I only bother commenting if I really feel I need to get something off my chest, but I don't assume anyone gives a shit. I frequently just delete my responses. I don't generally feel anyone needs what I'm saying. It takes a bit of self-awareness to realize that no one…

I have a friend/coworker that is verbose af (14min audios discussing something that could be compressed in 100 words) and is not that we’re not interested, but it gets annoying after years and years of text walls.

Being concise is an art by itself and it’s a really good way to express your thinking and convince people, it just needs practice.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#375

I'm verbose, and no one was ever interested in anything I ever had to say before. And, they certainly wouldn't be now if I used AI to do it. These days I only bother commenting if I really feel I need to get something off my chest, but I don't assume anyone gives a shit. I frequently just delete my responses. I don't generally feel anyone needs what I'm saying. It takes a bit of self-awareness to realize that no one…

I have a friend/coworker that is verbose af (14min audios discussing something that could be compressed in 100 words) and is not that we’re not interested, but it gets annoying after years and years of text walls. Being concise is an art by itself and it’s a really good way to express your thinking and convince people, it just needs practice.

I asked Claude to write a one word response:

Touché.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#376

AI conversations are like dreams: everyone has one they like and wants to share it with others ... but no on gives a crap about your dream/chat session, because it was uniquely appealing to you , and not them. Don't bore your co-workers (or others) with descriptions of your dreams, and don't throw a computer's dreams (AI chat logs) at them either.

I legitimately would rather hear about my coworkers dream than their AI chatlog. At least the dream might be an interesting bit of their subconscious. The unwanted log is just a more annoying way to convey what would otherwise be a single sentence answer.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#377
“Imagine that you encounter a signal. It is structured, and dense with information. It meets all the criteria of an intelligent transmission. Evolution and experience offer a variety of paths to follow, branch-points in the flowcharts that handle such input. Sometimes these signals come from conspecifics who have useful information to share, whose lives you'll defend according to the rules of kin selection. Sometimes they come from competitors or predators or other inimical entities that must be avoided or destroyed; in those cases, the information may prove of significant tactical value. Some signals may even arise from entities which, while not kin, can still serve as allies or symbionts in mutually beneficial pursuits. You can derive appropriate responses for any of these eventualities, and many others.

You decode the signals, and stumble: ... They contain no usable intelligence, yet they are structured intelligently; there is no chance they could have arisen by chance.

The only explanation is that something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message; only after wasting time and effort does the deception becomes apparent. The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is a virus.

Viruses do not arise from kin, symbionts, or other allies.

The signal is an attack.

And it's coming from right about there.”

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#378
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some years ago, answering "just google it!" was considered rude in some forums. It was asumed that some people didn't have enough googlefu, so googling for them was considered a good help. Also, almost all StackOverflow could be boiled down to a "RTFM" and close the questions. Today there might be people who can't extract enough juice from LLMs, so it is not entirely useless to say "I was able to extract this info fr…

This is not my experience at all. Getting a LMGTFY or an RTFM response really did mean that your question was easily answered by Google or the "fine" manual. It wasn't rude, it was an education, even a confidence boost saying, "you can figure this out, I believe in you!"

I was once downvoted to oblivion in reddit for answering a question with "If you asked google instead of reddit, you will already have the answer". I remember the question being something like "Who is the CEO of Facebook?". The logic of the downvoting was that some people don't trust Google answers, or don't know how to ask so they can't tell in advance if some question is for Google or needs a human.

IMO they were right, I changed my approach to those kind of questions, and since that I try to answer like "A quick search in Google says that the CEO is Mark Zuckerberg (link to the search)". In StackOverflow I tried to go "As it says in the manual, the params for that function are A, B and C, blah, blah...", so a mild RTFM. And now I do the same quoting the LLM paragraph that gave me the key info. It is like you say "this is how you can figure it out on your own the next time", and feels less aggressive than "go figure that on your own".

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#379

I've decided that I'm done being pissy about this kind of response, or thinking that it's something that can be coached away. I choose to look at it like any other cultural communication difference - something that you learn about, try to give some grace to, and work a little harder to bridge (unless you're defusing a bomb, performing surgery, flying an airplane etc.). In this person's communication culture, they are…

In my workplace AI has more credibility than humans, so dropping a block of claude with attribution can be:

- A way to convince others of your position.

- A way to demonstrate that you did research (because experience is worthless)

- A way to soften harsh feedback.

At first I found this very dysfunctional but now I don't mind too much. It beats being ignored and/or offending someone.

Post reply on HN