471–480 of 1001 posts
What a welcome post. The whole reason I come here is to get thoughtful input from smart people, and not what I could get myself from an LLM. While we are at it; Think your own thoughts as well :) I know how easy it is to "let it come up with a first draft" and not spend the real effort of thinking for yourself on questions, but you'll find it's a road to perdition if you let yourself slip into the habit. Thanks to al…
Is there a site that deserves more than this one to be destroyed by slop? It's hypocritical but telling for the places most actively trying to profit from it to ban it themselves.
I'm here to read what actual humans think. If I wanted to read what an LLM thinks, I could just ask it. But here's where it gets tricky: Do I prefer low-effort, off-the-top-of-my-head reactions, as long as it is human? Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced? Am I here to read authentic humans because I value authenticity for its own sake (like preferring Champagne instead of…
and
> Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced?
What is the difference? What's the line between these two?
The prompt: "Analyze and respond" is pretty clearly "I would just ask it." and, the prompt: "here's my comment, please ONLY the check the grammar and spelling" would probably be ok.
What about prompt:"I disagree with using LLMs for commenting at all for . Please expound on this and provide references and examples". That would explode the word count for this site.
I'm absolutely 100% for this policy. My only caution is that good writers and LLMs look very similar, because LLMs were trained on a corpus of good writers. Good writers use semicolons and em-dashes. Sometimes we used bulleted lists or Oxford commas. So we should make sure to follow that other HN rule, and assume the person on the other end is a good faith actor, and be cautious about accusing someone of using AI. (I…
What a welcome post. The whole reason I come here is to get thoughtful input from smart people, and not what I could get myself from an LLM. While we are at it; Think your own thoughts as well :) I know how easy it is to "let it come up with a first draft" and not spend the real effort of thinking for yourself on questions, but you'll find it's a road to perdition if you let yourself slip into the habit. Thanks to al…
Quite! It's very easy to send a HN link to one of our new artificial friends to see what they have to say about it. Subsequently publicly posting the inference variation you receive strikes me as very self-centered. Passing it off as your own words - which the majority seem to - is doubly bizarre. It's very funny to imagine people prompting: "Write a compelling comment, for me, to pass off as my thoughts, for this HN…
For me, I care a lot about the quality of thinking, as measure by the output itself, because this is something I can observe*.
I also care -- but somewhat less -- about guessing as to the underlying generative mechanisms. By "generative mechanisms" I mean simply "Where did the thought come from?" One particular person? Some meme (optimized for cultural transmission)? Some marketing campaign? Some statistic from a paper that no one can find anymore? Some dogma? Some LLM? Some combination? It is a mess to disentangle, so I prefer to focus on getting to ground on the thought itself.
* Though we still have to think about the uncertainty that comes from interpretation! Great communication is hard in our universe, it would seem.
How can HN be so pro-AI for the rest of the world, but anti-AI on HN? Do we not think that other people want to see words, pictures, software, and videos created by humans too?
HN is not a single entity, but many people with varying views.