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

You can just say it

noperator.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 241 posts

Re: You can just say it

#41

Post by nlawalker »

drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

>But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also argue that there's art in a lot of that output, in the form of intent, decision making and communication. But I admit that the value of those really depends on the eye of the beholder and the situation.

Re: You can just say it

#42

Post by galleywest200 »

reaperducer wrote: post #35
cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

How can I trust that the sender actually understands the words they want me to read if it is all just AI output?

Re: You can just say it

#43

Post by bluefirebrand »

gavinray wrote: post #33

"Humans are valuable" For what, and to whom? This is a very anthropo-centric and hubristic view, in my opinion. I dont think a human life inherently has any more value than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness This of course makes me somewhat of a hypocrite as I eat meat, but you make some tradeoffs in moral resolve in the name of pragmatism and economy.

> than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness

Can you give an example of anything else you think might possess phenomenal consciousness?

Re: You can just say it

#44

Post by [deleted] »

akomtu wrote: post #38
pasquinelli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

see what you don't understand is that the owning class actually bring crucial long term strategic vision. i wonder though: we always talk of ai replacing the working class, but wouldn't it be more economical for ai to provide that long term strategic thinking? i'm sure the operating costs for ai would be way less than the operating costs of billionaires. everyone would be better off.

If there is anything worse than the tyranny of greed, it is the tyranny of a machine that's trying to optimize you 24/7.

[deleted]

Re: You can just say it

#46

Post by mrandish »

cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

I've always assumed when I hear people talking about AI emails, they're talking about longer formal writing to groups, such as a proposal not personal 1:1 messages. Hearing this kind of surprises me but I don't know first-hand since I was able to retire just before LLMs became ubiquitous.

In my experience, 1:1 or 1:2 emails among coworkers, peers or friends tended to be as short and direct as possible anyway. Even pre-LLM, an email as long or structured as an LLM would create today would have been notably weird.

Re: You can just say it

#47

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

The problem is everything we send that was created from a prompt is not you.

If I wanted to read something that wasn't written by another person, you might as well swap out the from field for "Claude" or "gpt-5" or w/e and stop pretending you had any valuable input.

Sure there's something to be said about having an AI help. But I'd rather that be an attachment clearly labelled and for the content to be strictly reserved for a human.

This is already how I think PRs and such should be written. There should be a field or section of the description reserved for the AI generated content, with the rest being for the human to clearly describe their intention.

But instead we're living in a world of AIs masquerading as humans. And it's only getting worse.

Re: You can just say it

#48

Post by singingtoday »

reaperducer wrote: post #35
cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

I'm dyslexic. I put every comment through the LLM, or other tools. Including this comment.

I understand where you're coming from but please believe me when I tell you that if I write comments myself nobody will understand them and it just turns into an argument where people claim I say things that I didn't say.

By filtering my comments through an llm, I have reduced this issue significantly.

Re: You can just say it

#49

Post by Yokohiii »

galleywest200 wrote: post #42
reaperducer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

How can I trust that the sender actually understands the words they want me to read if it is all just AI output?

You don't. The sender is just pushing responsibility back to you.

Probably the best response would be "No." The least anticipated one, creating a chance of actual communication.

Re: You can just say it

#50

Post by pasquinelli »

akomtu wrote: post #38
pasquinelli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

see what you don't understand is that the owning class actually bring crucial long term strategic vision. i wonder though: we always talk of ai replacing the working class, but wouldn't it be more economical for ai to provide that long term strategic thinking? i'm sure the operating costs for ai would be way less than the operating costs of billionaires. everyone would be better off.

If there is anything worse than the tyranny of greed, it is the tyranny of a machine that's trying to optimize you 24/7.

if we optimize the billionaire class everyone's better off, like i said. of course we can go orange catholic, but my comment was premised on how we might apply ai.
Post reply on HN