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

I don't care how well your "AI" works

fokus.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–808 of 808 posts

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#801

Post by rozap »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #749
rozap wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not complaining about it, I said in my post that it's a huge time saver. It's here to stay, and that's pretty clear to see. It has mostly automated away the need for junior engineers, which just 5 years ago would have been a very unexpected outcome, but it's kind of the reality now. All that being said: There's a segment of the software eng population that has their heads in the sand about it and the argument bas…

Junior engineers will be fine; OpenAI is actually choosing to hire juniors now because they just learned all their theory and structure, and are way more willing to push the LLMs to see what they can do. Bad code is bad code. There’s been bad code since day one; the question is how fast are you willing to fail, learn, fail again, learn more, and keep going. LLMs make failing fast nearly effortless, and THAT is power…

Failing is part of the learning process if you learn from it. Otherwise it's just failing.

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#802

Post by aprilthird2021 »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #756
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking at code at my tech job right now where someone AI outsourced it, didn't proofread it, and didn't realize a comparison table it built is just running over the same dataset twice causing every comparison to look "identical" even when the data isn't

Yes, but that isn’t the fault of the LLM. That’s human sloppiness. Humans have failed to review sloppy and bad code since people have been coding.

Did you read the convo we are having?

> What's a lot more common is people getting called out for offloading tasks to LLMs in a way that just breaches protocol.

I'm giving an example of that

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#803

Post by LocalH »

Y_Y wrote: post #429
LocalH wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good start (albeit the most basic one) would be to encourage budding hackers to read through the Jargon File.

I think that's going to become like asking a child to read Shakespeare; surely valuable, but requiring a whole parallel text to give modern translation and context.

The Jargon File contains a lexicon. Thus, it contains its own such text.

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#804

Post by notJim »

dweinus wrote: post #633
notJim wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every artist and creator of anything learned by engaging with other people's work. I see training AI as basically the same thing. Instead of training an organic mind, it's just training a neural network. If it reproduces works that are too similar to the original, that's obviously an issue, but that's the same as human artists.

This is a bad-faith argument, but even if I were to indulge it: human artists can/do get sued for mimicing the works of others for profit, which AI precisely does. Secondly, many of the works in question have explicit copyright terms that prohibit derivative works. They have built a multi-billion dollar industry on scaled theft. I don't see a more charitable interpretation.

You can't call something a bad-faith argument just because you disagree with it. I mean, you can, but it's not at all convincing.

As I said, if AI companies reproduce copyrighted works, they should be sued, just like a human artist would be. I haven't experienced that in my interactions with LLMs, but I've never really tried to achieve that result either. I don't really pirate anymore, but torrents are a much easier and cheaper way to do copyright infringement than using an AI tool.

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#805

Post by svieira »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #210
walt_grata wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs vs human Handholding the human pays off in the long run more than hand holding the llm, which requires more hand holding anyway. Claude doesn't get better as I explain concepts to it the same way a jr engineer does.

I had hired 3 junior/mid lvl devs and paid them to do nothing but study to improve their skills, it was my investment in their future, I had a big project on the horizon that I needed help with. After 6 months I let them go, the improvement was far too slow. Books that should have taken a week to get through were taking 6 weeks. Since then LLM have completely surpassed them. I think it’s reasonable to think that some…

> After 6 months I let them go, the improvement was far too slow.

The bit that's missing from this story is the "why" the improvement was far too slow. Was it primarily a failure to hire the right people, a failure to teach them what you wanted them to learn, a failure to understand what you needed to teach, or a deliberate lie on the part of all three of them to steal from you?

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#806

Post by pas »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #788
pas wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most people don't care and don't even know, and Activision correctly believed that it won't matter (doesn't matter) ... of course the whole company from Satya down to the idiot whatever art director who asked for this are impervious to shame, so yes, how it could matter? it's not like people bought the last ~10 years of CoD for its artistic value, people bought it because they wanted to switch off their brain and get…

>and Activision correctly believed that it won't matter The titanic had 3 days off warning. It took 3 hours to sink. It "won't matter" until it does. And then it will collapse all at once. WWE 2K20 shows that even yearly franchises have breaking points where the backlash is too much to ignore. But i guess Activision executives are thinking thwy will have jumped ship if and when that time hits.

apparently it's good enough for console gamers

https://www.vice.com/en/article/cod-black-ops-7-is-the-most-...

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#807

Post by tekne »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #350
tekne wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ads, honestly. It's quality. The tool being designed to empower the user. Have you ever seen something encrusted in ads be designed to empower the user? At least, it necessitates reducing the user's power to remove the ads. But it's fundamentally a correlation, and this observation is important because something can be completely ad-free and yet disempowering and hence unpleasant to use; it's just that vice-…

> It's not ads, honestly. It's quality. The tool being designed to empower the user. Have you ever seen something encrusted in ads be designed to empower the user? At least, it necessitates reducing the user's power to remove the ads. Yes, a number of ad-supported sites are designed to empower the user. Video streaming platforms, for example, give me nearly unlimited freedom to watch what I want when I want. When I w…

I agree actually, I said rare not nonexistent.

But note that I, as the user, want to block the ads. If I can easily do so (and I usually can) it’s fine. But the moment I can’t, in that very small way, I am disempowered.

And that’s usually where the junk shows up: in what way is the software not as good as it could be both because it needs to show ads and because it wants it to be hard to disable them (the second is worse).

The thesis is that jank is not quite imperfect software (it will never be perfect!) but rather something which is clearly not at a local minimum, and it’s pretty hard to have a local minimum with ads (even if the global ecosystem requires them for sustainability; something something evolutionarily stable something something always defect).

On a secondary point, when ads are locally optimal, we call it an effective sponsorship. Especially interesting when you don’t know that it’s an ad. How many times have you paid to see something with an agenda? Note that’s not a bad thing; I’d say every decent work of art needs at least some agenda. But it’s interesting because ads generally are not, in this sense, art; though on the flip side I’ve seen sponsorships on YouTube which are genuinely as if not more entertaining than the video itself and are still clearly sponsored and hence not deceptive.

Re: I don't care how well your "AI" works

#808

Post by somebehemoth »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #790
somebehemoth wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This just in: 90% of everything is crap. AI does not, cannot, and will not change that. Use a search engine. Such a disingenuous take. AI is demonstrably being used to flood the web with slop faster than humans ever could. Now 99% of everything will be crap, just like your takes.

Now 99% of everything will be crap, just like your takes. And the worst part is, they made it without checking with you first. Must be frustrating.

Nasty ad hominem, nice! I guess you have to get good at that when your arguments are as vacuous as yours.
Post reply on HN