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

The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

honest-broker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 421 posts

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

#411

Post by southernplaces7 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #148
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…

I am a huge AI supporter, and use it extensively for coding, writing and most of my decision making processes, and I agree with you. The AI features in non-AI-first apps tend to be awkward bolt-ons, poorly thought out and using low quality models to save money. I don't want shitty bolt-ons, I want to be able to give chatgtp/claude/gemini frontier models the ability to access my application data and make api calls for…

>and use it extensively for coding, writing and most of my decision making processes,

I'm curious, do you find it easier to climb stairs or inclines now that you've tossed your brain in the trash?

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

#412

Post by bsenftner »

handfuloflight wrote: post #401
obirunda wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The irony here is rich. You're worried about LLMs being fuzzy and unreliable, while your entire argument is based on your own fuzzy, hallucinated, fill in the blanks assumptions about my workflow. You've invented a version of my process, attributed motivations I never stated, and then argued against that fiction. You're demanding deterministic behavior from AI while engaging in completely non-deterministic reasoning…

Sorry to interrupt here, but handfuloflight, see: this is what I mean by "it's like talking into a void"., my first statement in what started this whole thread. obirunda is doing exactly what you say here: projected some fiction in their imagination, and they are arguing against that, and not your statements which appear to be ignored, or not understood. obirunda is listening to the fictional narrative and not what you're writing.

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

#413

Post by bsenftner »

obirunda wrote: post #404
handfuloflight wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking me to reveal my specific competitive advantages that save me significant time and money to convince someone who's already decided I'm wrong. That's rich. I've explained the principles clearly: I maintain full engineering rigor while using natural language to express logic and requirements. This isn't theoretical, it's producing real business results for me, and unless I am engaging you in a client relat…

Big moat you have there I bet

Actually, it's a huge moat because the majority of the tech industry is like you, refusing to abandon your horseless carriage artistry for what is coming, and that is going to be natural language programming.

The issue is that the software industry as a whole has lost trust, larger society does not trust software to not have surveillance capitalistic aspects, and that is just the tip of the unethical nonsense that the software industry tried to pretend "there's nothing that can be done about it". Well, there is: abandonment of professionally published software because it cannot be trusted. Technologically, engineering-wise it will be a huge step back for the efficiency of software, but who the fuck cares when "efficient professional software" robs one blind?

The software industry is rapidly becoming an unethical shithole, and no uber productivity anything sells without trust.

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

#414

Post by contextfree »

Avamander wrote: post #231
CuriouslyC wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a huge AI supporter, and use it extensively for coding, writing and most of my decision making processes, and I agree with you. The AI features in non-AI-first apps tend to be awkward bolt-ons, poorly thought out and using low quality models to save money. I don't want shitty bolt-ons, I want to be able to give chatgtp/claude/gemini frontier models the ability to access my application data and make api calls for…

> The AI features in non-AI-first apps tend to be awkward bolt-ons, poorly thought out and using low quality models to save money. The weirdest location I've found the most useful LLM-based feature so far has been Edge with it's automatic tab grouping. It doesn't always pick the best groups and probably uses some really small model, but it's significantly faster and easier than anything that I've had so far. I hope t…

I always thought there might be a place for some kind of ML in OS file save dialogs, to surface likely destination folders based on context.

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

#415

Post by mittensc »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #396
mittensc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the medium article you linked tells you to format your hard drive, so it's obviously not how to set up an encrypted file that can be mounted.

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

The man page is the source of truth and quite good, that it's not one of the first links or even on the first page is a problem.

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

#416

Post by mittensc »

gjm11 wrote: post #80
mittensc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW, when I put > into Google (this was the first thing I tried, though without knowledge that it might be a tricky case I might have been less careful picking keywords) I get what look like plausible results. At the top there's a "featured snippet" from opensource.com, allegedly from 2021, that begins with: create an empty file (this turns out to mean a file of given size with no useful data in it, not a size-0 fil…

seems like we're getting different results, nonetheless, thanks

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

#417

Post by mittensc »

nosianu wrote: post #58
mittensc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I asked Google that exact question, and I got an AI summary that looks alright? Please verify if those steps make sense, I pasted them into a text service, it's too much for an HN comment: https://justpaste.it/63eiz It shoed 25 or so URLs as the source.

> Please verify if those steps make sense

I mean... that's the problem... you can't trust the AI output yourself and you're sharing it here. Would you use those steps?

Just a note though, it does look correct, this time.

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

#418

Post by mittensc »

hambes wrote: post #53
mittensc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is "How do you set up an encrypted file on linux that can be mounted and accessed same as a hard drive." literally what you put into the search bar? if so, that's the problem. try "mount luks encrypted file" or "luks file mount". too many words and any grammar at all will degrade your results. it's all about keywords edit: after trying it myself i quickly realized the problem - luks related articles are usually about…

> mount luks encrypted file

Usually references hard drive articles and even AI slop that says same thing.

End of the first page, there's one link to something that solves it, so I might take this hint, thanks.

> luks file mount

This actually has a decent first link... so, yeah... cool

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

#419

Post by mittensc »

nosianu wrote: post #183
multjoy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the question. The complaint is the poster can't find anything on Google because the results are now so poor, and your response is "but here's some AI generated slop, which may or may not make any sense."

That was exactly the question??? That "AI generated slop" IS Google's main response now. I posted it so that someone might have a look to see if/how correct it actually is, your response, that does not deign to even look, is less than helpful - if you want to complain about Google not being useful, how about your own response?

> I posted it so that someone might have a look to see if/how correct it actually is

If you can't trust that the AI generated snippet is correct, why would you share it?

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

#420

Post by ternaus »

> They wanted it. They paid for it. They enjoyed it. The counter example is open-source software.

If we talk about popular packages: - people want it - people enjoy it - people do not pay for that

But force-feeding with strict licenses like Ultralytics does works. Yes, it is force-feeding, but noone wants to pay the price, unless there is no other choice.

Post reply on HN