81–90 of 126 posts
Well now people are still lazy, but at least they talked to their llm, they just want you to read the result, interpret the data and tell them what you found out.
We might make better software, but we aren't making better humans.
Sending an AI response communicates more than just the response itself: 1. "I'm not entirely sure, but this is what it says to save you some time." 2. "You didn't ask the question precisely because you are not an SME, but I reworded it using the jargon that would allow the AI to answer better and here is the response." 3. "This response is AI, but in general my other ones are not" 4. "I trust the AI's response in thi…
If you're trying (1), it's easier to say "I don't know, maybe can answer". It doesn't save any time to ask an AI that the other party is equally equipped to ask. It just saves the responder time from being genuinely helpful.
If you're (2), at least explain this (or include the prompt so it's self evident and a teaching moment). Of course, if you're a SME, maybe you also have the knowledge to just answer directly - see 4.
For (3), why reply at all: see 1.
For (4), saying this associates your own authority and knowledge, and is valuable, but the omission of such disclaimer makes it indistinguishable from 1.
Overdramatic: when I saw friends and acquaintances doing this I couldn't help but feeling a slight sense of loss--that we (I) have lost the person. At that point, is the person still even a person? He's nothing more but a meat RPA, copy pasting responses. The reason I value a person is the uniqueness of the person's brain's weights and biases. When I lose access to that and I get ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini weights and bia…
> At that point, is the person still even a person? He's nothing more but a meat RPA, copy pasting responses. You can say nearly the same of someone obsessed with social media and brain-rot. If you don't actively resist, soon your world view becomes the algorithm that you are being fed. Very few people are able to resist this.
Took the entire code review, put it into Claude and then responded in GitLab.
80% of the issues were trivial, only 1 was a minor problem. The post was like 10,000 characters long, including explaining the change.
Huge waste of everyones time.
This really depends on context. Sure, if you're responding to a forum post or StackOverflow question with nothing but the LLM output, then I agree with this. On the other hand, where I've done this at work, it's because I and some peers _together_ are trying to understand something (e.g., debugging), and Claude has some potentially useful input, but I'm not actually sure. And I'm looking to collaborate on interpretin…
The essence of what this page is stating is: “do not act as a reverse proxy between me and a LLM.” That’s rude and shows that the person in question is acting like a brainless automata.
I think it depends on the context and also not being deceptive. If someone just spent 4 hours trying to root cause a SEV with Claude and they finally have a nice high-level Claude-generated summary of all that work, just paste it and share it. Don't waste time trying to reword it to make it seem like you wrote it. A simple "After spending a few hours with Claude, here's the conclusion about what the problem was: [pas…
Overdramatic: when I saw friends and acquaintances doing this I couldn't help but feeling a slight sense of loss--that we (I) have lost the person. At that point, is the person still even a person? He's nothing more but a meat RPA, copy pasting responses. The reason I value a person is the uniqueness of the person's brain's weights and biases. When I lose access to that and I get ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini weights and bia…
While I endorse the message of TFA (though do find the framing a bit on the overly blunt side), I believe it's unfair to reduce to "losing the person". The person is still willing to engage with you and still had to use their human words to prompt the AI. The latent space they exposed within the model is still uniquely the result of their words and effort. We're just missing the establishment of a decorum of, "even i…
Overdramatic: when I saw friends and acquaintances doing this I couldn't help but feeling a slight sense of loss--that we (I) have lost the person. At that point, is the person still even a person? He's nothing more but a meat RPA, copy pasting responses. The reason I value a person is the uniqueness of the person's brain's weights and biases. When I lose access to that and I get ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini weights and bia…
While I endorse the message of TFA (though do find the framing a bit on the overly blunt side), I believe it's unfair to reduce to "losing the person". The person is still willing to engage with you and still had to use their human words to prompt the AI. The latent space they exposed within the model is still uniquely the result of their words and effort. We're just missing the establishment of a decorum of, "even i…
In that case, I would like to know what prompt they used so that I can learn to use the AI tools better.
Like, we've had "let me google that for you" since 2008...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment, but this is not something I can send my colleagues. You can be annoyed and right, and still avoid being crass.
Perhaps this falls into "how to have hard conversations" bucket?
I’d much, much prefer people were honest about AI answers and text and had the decency to cite it explicitly when they use it. What I hate far worse than what this article complains about is just blatant AI writing in articles, comments, video narration you name it. Way more insidious, way bigger problem!
I suspect nobody is willing to admit it anymore because they will lose internet points over it.