The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public • Hacker News Board

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#391

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 7:55 PM UTC

"This is how AI gets introduced to the marketplace-by force-feeding the public. And they're doing this for a very good reason."

"Most people won't pay for AI voluntarily-just 8% according to a recent survey. So they need to bundle it with some other essential product."

"You never get to decide."

Silicon Valley and Redmond have been operating this way for quite some time.

They have been effectively removing choice long before this "AI" push. Often accomplished through "defaults".

This "AI" nonsense may be the most bold example.

"But if AI is bundled into existing businesses, Silicon Valley CEOs can pretend that AI is a moneymaker, even if the public is lukewarm or hostile."

"The AI business model would collapse overnight if they needed consumer opt-in. Just pass that law, and see how quickly the bots disappear. "

"You don't get to choose. You're never asked. It just shows up. Now you have to deal with it."

"If they gave people a choice, they would reject this tyranny masquerading as innovation."

"The AI business model would collapse overnight if they needed consumer opt-in."

We never get to find out what would happen.

One comment I would like to add here.

By removing meaningful choice and creating fabricated "demand" these so-called "tech" companies (unnecessary intermediaries) when faced with antitrust allegations then try to argue something like, "Everyone is using it therefore everyone wants it." And, "This shows everyone prefers us over the alternatives."

"Frank Zappa offers a possible mission statement for Microsoft back in 1976, a few months after the company is founded."

RIP.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#392

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 7:55 PM UTC

obirunda wrote: post #390

handfuloflight wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're projecting. You're the one conflating here, not me. You've conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." I am explicitly saying implementation feedback comes from "running code and testing behavior, not from typing semicolons", yet you keep insisting that the mechanical act of typing syntax somehow provides architectural insights. You've also conflated "…

You keep sidestepping the core issue with LLMs. If all that you are really doing is writing your code in English and asking the LLM to re-write it for you in your language of choice (probably JS), then end of discussion. But your tone really implies you're a big fan of the vibes of automation this gives. Your repeated accusations of "conflating" are a transparent attempt to deflect from the hollowness of your own arg…

[deleted]

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#393

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:02 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #115

I also find these features annoying and useless and wish they would go away. But that's not because LLMs are useless, nor because the public isn't using them (as daishi55 pointed out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44479578 ) It's because the integrations with existing products are arbitrary and poorly thought through, the same way that software imposed by executive fiat in BigCo offices for trend-chasing…

A "solution" looking for a problem.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#394

Post by handfuloflight » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:10 PM UTC

obirunda wrote: post #390

handfuloflight wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're projecting. You're the one conflating here, not me. You've conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." I am explicitly saying implementation feedback comes from "running code and testing behavior, not from typing semicolons", yet you keep insisting that the mechanical act of typing syntax somehow provides architectural insights. You've also conflated "…

You keep sidestepping the core issue with LLMs. If all that you are really doing is writing your code in English and asking the LLM to re-write it for you in your language of choice (probably JS), then end of discussion. But your tone really implies you're a big fan of the vibes of automation this gives. Your repeated accusations of "conflating" are a transparent attempt to deflect from the hollowness of your own arg…

You completely ignored my conflation argument because you can't defend it, then accused me of "deflecting", that's textbook projection. You're the one deflecting by strawmanning me into defending "deterministic LLMs" when I never made that claim.

My compiler analogy wasn't about determinism: it was about abstraction levels. You're desperately trying to make this about LLM reliability when my point was about focusing cognitive energy where it matters most. Classic misdirection.

You can't defend your "keystroke mechanics = architectural wisdom" position, so you're creating fake arguments to attack instead. Enjoy your "deep, hard-won knowledge" from typing semicolons while I build actual systems.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#395

Post by obirunda » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:22 PM UTC

handfuloflight wrote: post #394

obirunda wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep sidestepping the core issue with LLMs. If all that you are really doing is writing your code in English and asking the LLM to re-write it for you in your language of choice (probably JS), then end of discussion. But your tone really implies you're a big fan of the vibes of automation this gives. Your repeated accusations of "conflating" are a transparent attempt to deflect from the hollowness of your own arg…

You completely ignored my conflation argument because you can't defend it, then accused me of "deflecting", that's textbook projection. You're the one deflecting by strawmanning me into defending "deterministic LLMs" when I never made that claim. My compiler analogy wasn't about determinism: it was about abstraction levels. You're desperately trying to make this about LLM reliability when my point was about focusing…

Here is the thing. Your initial claim was that English is the programming language. By virtue of making that claim you are claiming LLM has deterministic reliability equivalent to programming language -> compiler. This is simply not true.

If you're considering the LLM translation to be equivalent to the compiler abstraction, I'm sorry I'm not drinking that Kool aid with you.

You conceded above that LLMs aren't deterministic, yet you proceeded to call them an abstraction (conflating). If the output is not 100% equivalent, it's not an abstraction.

In C, you aren't required to inspect the assembly generated by the C compiler. It's guaranteed to be equivalent. In this case, you really need not write/debug assembly, you can use the language and tools to arrive at the same outcome.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that we have a new layer of abstraction that accomplishes the same. Not only it does not, but when it fails, it does so often in unexpected ways. But hey, if you're ready to call this an abstraction that frees up your cognitive load, continue to sip that Kool aid.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#396

Post by iLoveOncall » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:37 PM UTC

mittensc wrote: post #51

iLoveOncall wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User issue. Every single time this comes up. People don't know how to search, that's it. Even the HN population. Every time this gets posted, I ask for one example of thing you tried to find and what keywords you used. So I'm giving you the same offer, give me for one thing you couldn't find easily on Google and the keywords you used, and I'll show you Google search is just fine.

Allright, had this recently since i keep forgetting luks commands. How do you set up an encrypted file on linux that can be mounted and accessed same as a hard drive. (note: luks, a few commands) You will see a nonsensical ai summarization, lots of videos and junk websites being promoted then you'll likely find a few blogs with the actual commands needed. Nowhere is there a link to a manual for luks or similar. This…

Search "linux encrypt file as hard drive", the second result is a medium article which offers what you want: https://medium.com/@allypetitt/how-to-encrypt-a-drive-in-lin...

As I said, user issue.

> Nowhere is there a link to a manual for luks or similar.

Yes, thankfully. The man page for cryptsetup isn't exactly palatable.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#397

Post by iLoveOncall » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:39 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #107

iLoveOncall wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User issue. Every single time this comes up. People don't know how to search, that's it. Even the HN population. Every time this gets posted, I ask for one example of thing you tried to find and what keywords you used. So I'm giving you the same offer, give me for one thing you couldn't find easily on Google and the keywords you used, and I'll show you Google search is just fine.

Google is nearly useless for recipes. Try finding a recipe for beef bourguignon. They exist, but with huge prefaces and elaboration that mean endless scrolling on a phone, all in the name of maximizing time spent on page (which is a search ranking criteria).

Search for "beef bourguignon recipe", the first result is for https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/beef-bourguignon which has the list of ingredients and the recipe pretty much straight away.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#398

Post by handfuloflight » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:42 PM UTC

obirunda wrote: post #395

handfuloflight wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely ignored my conflation argument because you can't defend it, then accused me of "deflecting", that's textbook projection. You're the one deflecting by strawmanning me into defending "deterministic LLMs" when I never made that claim. My compiler analogy wasn't about determinism: it was about abstraction levels. You're desperately trying to make this about LLM reliability when my point was about focusing…

Here is the thing. Your initial claim was that English is the programming language . By virtue of making that claim you are claiming LLM has deterministic reliability equivalent to programming language -> compiler. This is simply not true. If you're considering the LLM translation to be equivalent to the compiler abstraction, I'm sorry I'm not drinking that Kool aid with you. You conceded above that LLMs aren't deter…

You're still avoiding the conflation argument because you can't defend it. You conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." These are fundamentally different cognitive processes.

When I refer to English as a programming language, I mean using English to express programming logic and requirements while automating the syntax translation. I'm not claiming we've eliminated the need for actual code, but that we can express the what and why in natural language while handling the how of implementation mechanically.

Your "100% equivalent" standard misses the point entirely. Abstractions work by letting you operate at a higher conceptual level. Assembly programmers could have made the same arguments about C: "you don't really understand what's happening at the hardware level!" Web developers could face the same critique about frameworks: "you don't really understand the DOM manipulation!" Are you writing assembly, then? Are your handcoding your DOM manipulation in your prancing purity? Or using 1998 web tech?

The value of any abstraction is whether it enables better problem-solving by removing unnecessary cognitive overhead. The architectural insights you value don't come from the physical act of typing brackets, semicolons, and variable declarations; they come from understanding system behavior, performance characteristics, and design tradeoffs, all of which remain fully present in my workflow.

You're defending the mechanical act of keystroke-by-keystroke code construction as if it's inseparable from the intelligence of system design. It's not.

You've confused form with function. The syntax is just the representation of logic, not the logic itself. You can understand a complex algorithm from pseudocode without knowing any particular language's syntax. You can analyze system architecture from high-level diagrams without seeing code. You can identify performance bottlenecks by profiling behavior, not by staring at semicolons. You've elevated the delivery mechanism above the actual thinking.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#399

Post by beefnugs » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

sillyfluke wrote: post #56

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't get bad for no reason. It needs to be bad for ads to continue to be profitable. Displaying what you searched for immediately is cannibalizing that market. I'm guessing ads in AI results is the logical next step.

Yes, that's the next logical step. The only silverlining is Google currently has less of a moat than last time in the technology in question, so some upstart could always be on their heels in a Kagi-esque way.

If ads is the next step then AI could never be used for coding. And if you mean in the browser or chat only... then people will just make a wrapper around the api.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#400

Post by obirunda » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 10:02 PM UTC

handfuloflight wrote: post #398

obirunda wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the thing. Your initial claim was that English is the programming language . By virtue of making that claim you are claiming LLM has deterministic reliability equivalent to programming language -> compiler. This is simply not true. If you're considering the LLM translation to be equivalent to the compiler abstraction, I'm sorry I'm not drinking that Kool aid with you. You conceded above that LLMs aren't deter…

You're still avoiding the conflation argument because you can't defend it. You conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." These are fundamentally different cognitive processes. When I refer to English as a programming language, I mean using English to express programming logic and requirements while automating the syntax translation. I'm not claiming we've e…

First of all. I never said that typing brackets and semicolons is what I'm arguing the benefits will come from. That's a very reductionist view of the process.

You have really strawmanned that and positioned my point as stemming from this concept of typing language specific code as being sacrosanct in some way. I'm defending that, because it's not my argument.

I'm arguing that you are being dishonest when you claim to be using English as the programming language in a way that actually expedites the process. I'm saying this is your evidence-free opinion.

I'm also confused by what your involvement is in the implementation and the extent of your specifications. When you write your specifications in English is all pseudo-code? Or are you leaving a lot for the LLM to deduce and implement?

By definition, if you are allowing some level of autonomy and "creative decision making" to the model, you are using it as an abstraction. But this is a dangerous choice, because you cannot guarantee it's reliably abstracting, especially if it's the latter. If it's the former, then I don't see the benefit of writing requirements so detailed as to pseudo-code level to have it write in compilable code for you just so you don't have to type brackets and semicolons.

LLMs aren't good enough yet to deliver reliable code in a project where you can actually consider that portion fully abstracted. You need to code review and test anything that comes out of it. If you're also considering the tests as being abstracted by LLMs then you have a proper feedback loop of slop.

Also, I'm not suggesting that it's impossible for you to understand, conceptually what you're trying to accomplish without writing the code yourself. That's ludicrous, I'm strictly calling B.S, when you are claiming to be using English as a programming language as if that has been abstracted. Whatever your "workflow" is, you're fooling yourself into thinking you have arrived at some productivity nirvana and are just accumulating technical debt for the future you.