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

ai;dr

0xsid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 313 posts

Re: ai;dr

#61

Post by charcircuit »

>Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write?

This take is baffling to me when I see it repeated. It's like saying why should people use Windows if Bill Gates did not write every line of it himself. We won't be able to see into Bill's mind. Why should you read a book if they couldn't bother to write it properly and have an editor come in and fix things.

The main purpose of a creative work is not seeing intimately into the creator's mind. And the idea that it is only people who don't care who use LLMs is wrong.

Re: ai;dr

#62

Post by lproven »

alontorres wrote: post #2

I think that this requires some nuance. Was the post generated with a simple short prompt that contributed little? Sure, it's probably slop. But if the post was generated through a long process of back-and-forth with the model, where significant modifications/additions were made by a human? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

You do you.

I do think there's a great deal wrong with that, and I won't read it at all.

Human can speak unto human unless there's language barrier. I am not interested in anyone's mechanically-recovered verbiage, no matter how much they massaged it.

Re: ai;dr

#63

Post by esafak »

The purpose of communication is to reduce the cost of obtaining information; I tell you what I have already figured out and vice versa. If we're both querying the same oracle, there is nothing gained beyond the prompt itself (which can be valuable).

Re: ai;dr

#64

Post by improbableinf »

mikemarsh wrote: post #53

> I can't imaging writing code by myself again, specially documentation, tests and most scaffolding > Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write? Interesting mix of sentiments. Is this code you're generating primarily as part of a solo operation? If not, how do coworkers/code reviewers feel about it?

That’s exactly my thoughts. Code and documentation are one of the primary types of „content” by/for engineers. Kind of goes against the main topic of the article.

Re: ai;dr

#65

Post by gordonhart »

acedTrex wrote: post #42
joshuaissac wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI-generated code is meant for the machine, or for the author/prompter. AI-generated text is typically meant for other people. I think that makes a meaningful difference.

Compiled code is meant for the machine, Written code is for other humans.

For better or worse, a lot of people seem to disagree with this, and believe that humans reading code is only necessary at the margins, similarly to debugging compiler outputs. Personally I don't believe we're there yet (and may not get there for some time) but this is where comments like GP's come from: human legibility is a secondary or tertiary concern and it's fine to give it up if the code meets its requirements and can be maintained effectively by LLMs.

Re: ai;dr

#67

Post by hinkley »

raincole wrote: post #10

> AI-generated code feels like progress and efficiency, while AI-generated articles and posts feel low-effort I've noticed that attitude a lot. Everyone thinks their use of AI is perfectly justified while the others are generating slops. In gamedev it's especially prominent - artists think generating code is perfectly ok but get acute stress response when someone suggests generating art assets.

A flavor of the Primary Attribution Error perhaps? It’s not a snug fit, but it’s close.

Re: ai;dr

#68

Post by archagon »

jimmaswell wrote: post #46
petetnt wrote: post #34

I agree with the general statement, if you didn’t spend time on writing it, I am not going to spend time reading it. That includes situations where the writer decides to strip all personality by letting AI format the end product. There’s irony in not wanting to read AI content, but still using it for code and especially documentation though, where the same principle should apply.

I find AI is great at documenting code. It's a description of what the code does and how to use it - all that matters is that it's correct and easy to read, which it almost certainly will be in my experience.

Documentation is needed for intent. For everything else you could just read the code. With well-written code, “what the code does and how to use it” should be clear.

Re: ai;dr

#69

Post by hinkley »

gordonhart wrote: post #65
acedTrex wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compiled code is meant for the machine, Written code is for other humans.

For better or worse, a lot of people seem to disagree with this, and believe that humans reading code is only necessary at the margins, similarly to debugging compiler outputs. Personally I don't believe we're there yet (and may not get there for some time) but this is where comments like GP's come from: human legibility is a secondary or tertiary concern and it's fine to give it up if the code meets its requirements…

And Sturgeon tells us 90% of people are wrong, so what can you do.

Re: ai;dr

#70

Post by ssiddharth »

charcircuit wrote: post #61

>Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write? This take is baffling to me when I see it repeated. It's like saying why should people use Windows if Bill Gates did not write every line of it himself. We won't be able to see into Bill's mind. Why should you read a book if they couldn't bother to write it properly and have an editor come in and fix things. The main purpose of a creat…

What is creative about generating an article from a stub? The kernel of the article around which the LLM constructs the content? I'm not trying to be an ass, just curious.
Post reply on HN