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

Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 419 posts

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#401

Post by latexr »

FilosofumRex wrote: post #308
latexr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't find anything wrong with this It’s not about being wrong, it’s about being ironic. We have LLMs shoved down our throats as this new way to communicate—we are encouraged to ask them to make our writing “friendlier” or “more professional”—and then one of the companies creating such a tool asks the very people most interested in it to not use it for the exact purpose we’ve been told it’s good at. They are aski…

It's sardonic rather than ironic - irony is sarcastic humor devised to highlight a contradiction or hypocrisy; while sardonic is disdainful, bitter and scornful. It'd have been ironic if Anthropic had asked the applicant not to use AI for the sake of originality and authenticity; but if the applicant felt compelled to do so, then it better rock and wow them to hire the applicant sight unseen. It's sardonic because An…

> It's sardonic rather than ironic

Doesn’t seem like that to me, after reading the dictionary definitions.

Sardonic: grimly mocking or cynical.

Ironic: happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

Pretty sure I meant the second one.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#403

Post by chuckro84 »

The HR are probably using AI to waste our time with their ridiculously worded job descriptions and now you can have a computer respond... You have simply completed the circle of stupidity. If they are upset you have sidestepped putting yourself inside their circle, maybe there is a better place to work after all...

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#404

Post by Viliam1234 »

camgunz wrote: post #360
blagie wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extreme scenario: I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice. The reason this does not happen is because…

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.

> very few humans like committing violence

How many people commit violence, and how many people are victims of violence, are two very different things. You could live in a society where only 1% of people commit violence, and yet the remaining 99% are living in fear, because each of them was repeatedly a victim of violence.

But if you have 1% of people ready to initiate violence, and let's say 3% of people willing to use violence in self-defense, suddenly life becomes much safer for you, even if you are among the remaining 96%. Not because the bad guys would hesitate to hurt you, but because they are likely get in trouble before they get to you.

People often confuse these two numbers. For example, they look at some statistics and think "20% of women report having been victims of domestic violence... oh, that means that 20% of men must be violent abusers", and they don't realize that the statistics also include some violent men who abused five or more partners each, so the actual number is probably much smaller than the 20%.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#405

Post by Viliam1234 »

mikepurvis wrote: post #336
imchillyb wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When have gun laws ever stopped a shooting? When have criminals EVER followed law, code, rules, or even a suggestion from their fellow citizens? Believing laws deter criminals is almost criminally insane and beggars all logic. After all of the accumulated evidence against your belief, you still believe laws deter criminality. The death penalty doesn’t deter criminals. How could words possibly have an effect?

Because most of gun safety is not actually about criminals; it’s about regular people with legal firearms becoming involved in crimes of passion, tragic accidents, and suicides. America is the worst industrialized country for gun deaths because the guns are present to enable those things to happen. Countless studies show that the key to reducing gun deaths is not more training, more “good guys”, or whatever else — it…

Somehow, in Switzerland every household has a gun, and yet they don't have the American levels of crime.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#406

Post by mikepurvis »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #405
mikepurvis wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most of gun safety is not actually about criminals; it’s about regular people with legal firearms becoming involved in crimes of passion, tragic accidents, and suicides. America is the worst industrialized country for gun deaths because the guns are present to enable those things to happen. Countless studies show that the key to reducing gun deaths is not more training, more “good guys”, or whatever else — it…

Somehow, in Switzerland every household has a gun, and yet they don't have the American levels of crime.

And indeed, a high proportion of gun deaths in Switzerland are suicides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...

This tracks with:

- High gun ownership

- Strong gun responsibility culture (guns are safely stored, so fewer accidents)

- Strong gun regulation (guns require permits that are not issued to those with criminal records)

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#407

Post by camgunz »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #404
camgunz wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.

> very few humans like committing violence How many people commit violence, and how many people are victims of violence, are two very different things. You could live in a society where only 1% of people commit violence, and yet the remaining 99% are living in fear, because each of them was repeatedly a victim of violence. But if you have 1% of people ready to initiate violence, and let's say 3% of people willing to…

Without wading into the "good guy with a gun" debate, tl;dr: almost no humans want to effect the level of violence required to execute a home invasion, even if the risk of being shot is zero. A big deal is made about guns as deterrents, but the simpler answer (and the one that explains why it's also safe in rural areas of other OECD countries with gun control) is that humans just aren't that violent--when there's enough to go around anyway. That's all I'm saying here.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#408

Post by shipp02 »

jon-wood wrote: post #393
shipp02 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you use it to get unstuck from a problem? Then come back and learn more about what you got stuck on. That seems like responsible use.

If you use it in that way then fine. I suspect both you and I knew that’s not what the GP meant though.

Kinda struck a nerve because I was using an llm to help get me unstuck just as I saw that comment

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#409

Post by blagie »

ethbr1 wrote: post #343
blagie wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes,…

The NRA is absolutely in favor of constitutional carry [0] and permitless carry [1]. [0] https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-c... [1] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-ca...

Please reread what I wrote. You should correct your statement to:

"The NRA is absolutely in favor of A LEGAL RIGHT TO constitutional carry and permitless carry."

I have a legal right to spend all of my money on Pokemon, (in my jurisdiction) to pro-Nazi free speech, to paint the outside of my house bright pink, or to walk around wearing a mankini in the middle of the winter. Very few of the people who advocate for me to have those rights advocate for me to actually do any of those things.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#410

Post by bryan_w »

ryandrake wrote: post #392
xnorswap wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? This is a good example of the attitude that I'm describing. Your question is close to an unthinkable culture shock to me. In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back. It's not something that you regulate and only provide to others that meet some moral bar that yo…

It depends on context. Imagine you're playing poker or some other game where being deceptive gives you an advantage. Do you tell the other poker players your hand because Honesty is the ethically right thing to do? You wouldn't win many games. On the other end of the spectrum are your dealings with your own friends and family. You're expected to be honest with them. I'm not going to try to place the job hunt anywhere…

When playing a game, honesty doesn't require you to announce your cards. But it would be considered dishonest to set up hidden cameras to see your opponent's cards.
Post reply on HN