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

"ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

terriblesoftware.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 161 posts

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#61

Post by greazy »

noir_lord wrote: post #13
einsteinx2 wrote: post #3

I’ve noticed this trend in comments across the internet. Someone will ask or say something, the someone else will reply with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “According to AI…” ChatGPT is free and available to everyone, and so are a dozen other LLMs. If the person making the comment wanted to know what ChatGPT had to say, they could just ask it themselves. I guess people feel like they’re being helpful, but I just d…

To modifying a hitchism. > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Becomes > That which can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought. Since no current AI thinks but humans do I’m just going to dismiss anything an AI says out of hand because you are pushing the cost of parsing what it said onto me and off you and nah, ain’t accepting that.

That's wonderfully succinct argument.

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#62

Post by ottah »

Relying heavily on information supplied by LLMs is a problem, but so is this toxic negativity towards technology. It's a tool, sometimes useful, and other times crap. Critical thinking and literacy is the key skill that helps you tell the difference, and a blanket rejection (just like absolute reliance) is the opposite of critical thinking.

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#63

Post by theamk »

throwaway-0001 wrote: post #46
theamk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you find a book that is as bad as AI advice, you should definitely throw it away and never read it. If someone is quoting a known-bad book, you should ignore their advice (and as a courtesy, tell them their book is bad) It's so strange that pro-AI people don't see this obvious fact and keep trying to compare AI with things that are actually correct.

So if anyone with below 120 iq gives you their opinion is disrespectful because they are stupid? —- It’s interesting that we have to respect human “stupid” opinions but anything from AI is discarded immediately. I’d advocate for respecting any opinion. And consider good or at least good willed opinion.

Of course I respect humans, I am a human myself! And I learned a lot from others, asking them (occasionally stupid) questions and listening to their explanations. Doing the same to other is just being fair. Explain a thing and make someone more knowledgeable! Maybe next time _they_ will help you!

This does not apply to AI of course. In most cases, if a person did an AI PR/comment once, they will keep doing AI PRs/comments, so your explanation will be forgotten next time they clear context. Might as well not waste your time and dismiss it right away.

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#64

Post by theamk »

simonw wrote: post #59
saulpw wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "a good model (if you know how to operate it well)" is doing a lot of lifting. To be sure, there are a lot of bad books, and you can get negative advice from them, but a book has fixed content that can gain and lose a reputation, whereas a model (even a good one!) has highly variable content dependent on "if you know how to operate it well". So when someone or some group that I respect recommends a book, I can r…

I agree that quoting a model's answer to someone else is bad form - you can get a model to say ANYTHING if you prompt it to, so a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation to try and prove a point is meaningless slop. I find models vastly more useful than most technical books in my own work because I know how to feed in the right context and then ask them the right questions about it. There isn't a book on earth that coul…

And as long as you don't copy-paste its advice into comments, that's fine.

No one really cares how you found all those .permission_allowed() calls to replace - was it grep, or intense staring, or AI model. All that matters is you stand behind it, and act as an author. Original post said it very well:

> ChatGPT isn’t on the team. It won’t be in the post-mortem when things break. It won’t get paged at 2 AM. It doesn’t understand the specific constraints, tech debt, or your business context. It doesn’t have skin in the game. You do.

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#65

Post by brookst »

theamk wrote: post #60
brookst wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it OK to outsource to engineers who are either more senior or more junior, or must one do every aspect of every project entirely oneself?

Sure it is, as long as those engineers apply and honest effort and learn from their mistakes. Even if they don't do things faster then you initially, at least they learned something. Unfortunately that logic does not apply to models.

Then I’m lost. I thought this was about the laziness of outsourcing thinking. Why would the outsourcee’s ability to learn impact whether it’s lazy or not?

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#66

Post by throwaway-0001 »

theamk wrote: post #63
throwaway-0001 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if anyone with below 120 iq gives you their opinion is disrespectful because they are stupid? —- It’s interesting that we have to respect human “stupid” opinions but anything from AI is discarded immediately. I’d advocate for respecting any opinion. And consider good or at least good willed opinion.

Of course I respect humans, I am a human myself! And I learned a lot from others, asking them (occasionally stupid) questions and listening to their explanations. Doing the same to other is just being fair. Explain a thing and make someone more knowledgeable! Maybe next time _they_ will help you! This does not apply to AI of course. In most cases, if a person did an AI PR/comment once, they will keep doing AI PRs/com…

[flagged]

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#67

Post by cindyllm »

brookst wrote: post #65
theamk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is, as long as those engineers apply and honest effort and learn from their mistakes. Even if they don't do things faster then you initially, at least they learned something. Unfortunately that logic does not apply to models.

Then I’m lost. I thought this was about the laziness of outsourcing thinking. Why would the outsourcee’s ability to learn impact whether it’s lazy or not?

[dead]

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#68

Post by lostmsu »

lrvick wrote: post #34
paulcole wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this pisses you off, ask yourself why. Why would it piss me off that you’re so closed minded about an incredible technology?

Using an AI to think for me would be like going to a gym and paying a robot to lift weights for me. Like sure that is cool that is possible, but if I do not do the work myself I will not get stronger. Our brains are the same way. I also do not use a GPS because there are literally studies with MRI scans proving it makes an entire section of our brain go dark compared to London taxi drivers required by law to navigate…

> Our brains are the same way.

How many IQ points do you gain per year of subjecting yourself to this?

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#69

Post by lostmsu »

greazy wrote: post #61
noir_lord wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To modifying a hitchism. > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Becomes > That which can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought. Since no current AI thinks but humans do I’m just going to dismiss anything an AI says out of hand because you are pushing the cost of parsing what it said onto me and off you and nah, ain’t accepting that.

That's wonderfully succinct argument.

It hinges assuming that ChatGPT does not thinking, which is clearly false.

Hell, Feynman said as much in 1985. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI

Re: "ChatGPT said this" Is Lazy

#70

Post by satisfice »

sanswork wrote: post #51
lrvick wrote: post #23

I do not use AI for engineering work and never will, because doing the work of thinking for myself is how I maintain the neural capacity for forming my own original thoughts and ideas no AI has seen before. If anyone gives me an opinion from an AI, they disrespect me and themselves to a point they are dead to me in an engineering capacity. Once someone outsources their brain they are unlikely to keep learning or evol…

I will not use Jr developers for engineering work and never will, because doing the work of a Jr..... You don't have to outsource your thinking to find value in AI tools you just have to find the right tasks for them. The same as you would with any developer jr to you. I'm not going to use AI to engineer some new complex feature of my system but you can bet I'm going to use it to help with refactoring or test writing…

FFS stop it with the “it’s just the same as a human” BS. It’s not just like working with a junior engineer! Please spend 60 seconds genuinely reflecting on that argument before letting it escape like drool from the lips of your writing fingers.

We work with junior engineers because we are investing in them. We will get a return on that investment. We also work with other humans because they are accountable for their actions. AI does not learn and grow anything like the satisfying way that our fellow humans do, and it cannot be held responsible for its actions.

As the OP said, AI is not on the team.

You have ignored the OP’s point, which is not that AI is a useless tool, but that merely being an AI jockey has no future. Of course we must learn to use tools effectively. No one is arguing with that.

You fanboys drive me nuts.

Post reply on HN