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

We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

playbookatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#71

Post by brazukadev »

Terretta wrote: post #14
WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each his own, but multi-tasking feels bad to me. I want to spend my life pursuing mastery of a craft, not lazily delegating. Not that everyone should have the same goals, but the mastery route feels like it's dying off. It makes me sad. I get it that some people just want to see the thing on the screen. Or your priority is to be a high status person with a loving family etc.. etc... All noble goals. I just don't f…

> I want to spend my life pursuing mastery of a craft, not lazily delegating. And yet, the Renaissance "grand masters" became known as masters through systematizing delegation: https://smarthistory.org/workshop-italian-renaissance-art/

It seems you are a bit obsessed with the Renaissance? Are you building a "vibeart" platform?

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#72

Post by brazukadev »

fragmede wrote: post #30
alehlopeh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how you compare people to renaissance painters to inflate their egos

The other surprising skill from this whole AI craze is, it turns out that being able to social engineer an LLM is a transferable skill to getting humans to do what you want.

One of the funniest things to see nowadays is the opposite tho, some people expecting similar responses from people but getting thrashed as we are not LLMs programmed to make them feel good

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#73

Post by throw1235435 »

bronco21016 wrote: post #46

I use AI coding almost daily. I’m able to move my repositories into context easily through the multitude of AI coding tools and I see a massive boost in productivity. I say this as a junior dev. Often the outputs are “almost” and I make the necessary fixes to get it the rest of the way there. To contrast with this, my org tried using a simple QA bot for internal docs and has been struggled to move anything beyond pro…

I'm wondering if the ROI will be worth it anytime soon for anything other than coding, and anything that can be publically scraped of the internet. Or more to the point things that are at a enterprise level and require paid staff to train the model for a particular domain at an expert level of quality - and the ROI of such a task to be positive.

The thing is none of this is really happening under typical economic assumptions like ROI, rate of return, net PV, etc.

You see - on a pure ROI basis none of this should of existed. Even for coding I think - a lot of this is fuelled by investor money and even if developers took up the tooling I'm not sure it would pay off the capital investment. DeepMind wouldn't of been funded by Google, transformers would of never been invented if it was just based on expected ROI, etc. Most companies can't afford engineers/AI researchers on the side "just in case" it pays off especially back then when AI was a pie in the sky kind of thing. The only reason why any of this works is because Big Tech has more money than they can invest, and the US system punishes dividends meaning companies can justify "expected bad" investments as long as they can be dressed up and some pay off. They almost operate like internal VC's/funds because they had the money to do so.

This allows "arms race" and "loss leading" dynamics to take hold and be funded - which isn't about economics as much anymore. Most other industries/domains don't have the war chest or investors with very very deep pockets to make that a reality.

Sadly I think we as SWE's think it will also be other professions; what if instead we just disrupted our own profession and a few other smaller targets?

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#74

Post by jbs789 »

vkou wrote: post #59
jp8585 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think things improved substantially when compared to last year. The latest batch of sota models is incredible (just ask any software engineer about what’s happening to their profession). It’s only a matter of time until other knowledge workers start getting the asphyxiating “vibe” coding treatment and that drama is what really fascinates me. People are absolutely torn. It seems that ai usage starts as a cl…

I'm a professional developer, using SOTA systems, and dealing with them is like bargaining with a fucking empathy vampire. It is emotionally draining. They trick the reptilian part of your brain that you're dealing with something resembling a human being, but if they were one, they'd be described as a pathological liar and gaslighter. You can't go off on them for it, because they don't give a shit, and you shouldn't…

That’s an interesting point. I do get pretty tired of the “you are right!” I get the upsides to engagement for a chat bot but for real work it is quite draining.

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#75

Post by jp8585 »

furyofantares wrote: post #57
jp8585 wrote: post #2

Anthropic released 1,250 interviews about AI at work. Their headline: "predominantly positive sentiments." We ran the same interviews through structured LLM analysis, and the true story is a bit different. Key findings: • 85.7% have unresolved tensions (efficiency vs quality, convenience vs skill) • Creatives struggle MOST yet adopt FASTEST • Scientists have lowest anxiety despite lowest trust (see ai as a tool, plai…

And then you had it write your post even here on HN. C'mon.

I guess all the interview quotes almost feel like those fake reviews on websites. They are all true excerpts, though. And we had a lot of fun creating all of those interactive bits. I get the sense there's a sort of ai content ptsd here, even some of the replies here are being flagged as ai, lol

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#76

Post by jonplackett »

jp8585 wrote: post #17
Terretta wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a sense of dread that comes from realizing that it’s not useful to “do work” anymore. That in order to thrive now, we need to outsource as much of your thinking to GPT as possible. If your sense of identity comes from “pure” intellectual pursuits, you are gonna have a bad time. This is 180 degrees from how to think about it. The more thinking you do as ratio to less toil, the better. The more time to apply yo…

I definitely understand that this is the rational way of viewing it. Leveraging these tools is an incredible feeling, but the sense of dread is always there in the corner. You can just feel a deep sense of angst in a lot of these interviews. In any case, I would rather have them and use them to their full extent than to become obsolete. Becoming Leonardo it is.

If you are capable of being a leonardo, then this approach will work.

Not everyone is capable of being Leonardo

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#77

Post by Libidinalecon »

userbinator wrote: post #62
layer8 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue with AI for creatives is that it’s virtually impossible to get AI to create a specific vision you have in mind. It creates something , but you just have to accept whatever that is, you can only steer it very roughly. It can be useful for getting inspiration, but not for getting exact results. If AI was better suited for realizing one’s own creative vision and working in a detail-oriented fashion, creators w…

Having tried some AI image generation, it feels more like gambling than work --- repeatedly submitting and hoping you get the result you wanted is extremely reminiscent of pulling a one-armed bandit hoping to win, except perhaps a bit cheaper. I can certainly understand a potential for addiction though.

For me, this is completely true but I just see it as a new form of being creative.

What I find interesting is no one use to be against Kai's Power Tools like this 30 years ago. I can remember waiting for new magazines to come out in the 90s to find what cool new graphic tools I might get to use to make something interesting. The output is what mattered, not the path to get to the output.

I think it is really deeper about art itself and that "creatives" are largely not at all actually creative. In the 21st century, "Creatives" is the word we use for the product varnish painters.

A class of people tasked with putting a thin layer of gloss on products to make them a bit more shiny. Absolutely nothing creative or artistic about this at all. Not to say there isn't a lot of talent involved in being a product gloss painter. I would be highly against AI in the arts too if I was a product gloss painter.

There is also this aspect that is like at some point in the 20th century, there were highbrow people that believed anything but 12-tone music was not worth listening to. Schoenberg promoted this music saying his discovery was in league with Einstein. If you were to play early punk music to these people not only is it not even music, it is an afront to the very idea of what you believe music to be. The idea anyone can pick up an instrument to make music is not worth considering. It is just making a type of noise. A type of worthless "slop".

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#78

Post by solumunus »

zdragnar wrote: post #66
pertymcpert wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily agree with you completely, but I think that's a really great analogy. At the very least full of optimism.

It's a fundamentally flawed analogy. Leo's apprentices learned and improved. They studied under a master and faced serious repercussions if they bullshitted about their ability or what they had accompolished. LLM capabilities are tied to their model, and won't improve on their own. You learn the quirks of prompting them, but they have fixed levels of skill. They don't lie, because they don't understand concepts such…

> one part the janitor cleaning up after their mistakes.

More often their master simply pointing out what they did wrong and instructing them to fix or improve it.

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#79

Post by jp8585 »

jonplackett wrote: post #76
jp8585 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely understand that this is the rational way of viewing it. Leveraging these tools is an incredible feeling, but the sense of dread is always there in the corner. You can just feel a deep sense of angst in a lot of these interviews. In any case, I would rather have them and use them to their full extent than to become obsolete. Becoming Leonardo it is.

If you are capable of being a leonardo, then this approach will work. Not everyone is capable of being Leonardo

I know, right? That’s part of the angst these professionals suffer. Failure, despite having the infinite leverage provided by these tools.

Re: We ran Anthropic’s interviews through structured LLM analysis

#80

Post by furyofantares »

jp8585 wrote: post #75
furyofantares wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you had it write your post even here on HN. C'mon.

I guess all the interview quotes almost feel like those fake reviews on websites. They are all true excerpts, though. And we had a lot of fun creating all of those interactive bits. I get the sense there's a sort of ai content ptsd here, even some of the replies here are being flagged as ai, lol

It's not PTSD, it's that I have no clue what you think of the results of your project here when even your comment on HN introducing it is an infodump that came out of an LLM. I can't tell what you think of the results, if you're skeptical of any of it, or if you think it's a smoking gun, or what. I don't know what parts of it you care more about than others. All I know is what the LLM thinks about the project.
Post reply on HN