921–930 of 1001 posts
If you feel the need to fix/edit your own comments with AI, keep in mind that this is not necessary at all. If someone can't figure out what you're saying, and don't care to try, they can run their LLM over it and have it summarize it with emojis, bullet points, and slightly changed content. You dont need to do that for all of us.
[flagged]
I don't think I'm going to spend the time to paraphrase my worthwhile AI-applied work for such hypocritical rules. So develop and fund and use AI but manually paraphrase things and don't cite AI? It is best to cite a source and/or a method. Do you think it is better to paraphrase and not cite AI? I don't recall encountering posts on HN that I've wanted to flag as AI.
Have you considered this?
If people do not cite their sources or methods when they use AI, then we will not know where error was introduced by paraphrasing AI.
I don't think I'm going to spend the time to paraphrase my worthwhile AI-applied work for such hypocritical rules. So develop and fund and use AI but manually paraphrase things and don't cite AI? It is best to cite a source and/or a method. Do you think it is better to paraphrase and not cite AI? I don't recall encountering posts on HN that I've wanted to flag as AI.
We've all heard the phrase "the sum of all human knowledge". I've been feeling more and more that generative AI represents the average of all human knowledge. Which has its place. But a future in which all thought and creativity is averaged away is a bleak one. It's the heat death of thought.
No, it's far worse. It's the mode of all human knowledge. The amount of effort you have to put into an LLM to get it to choose an option that isn't the most salient example of anything that could fit as a response is monumental. They skip exact matches for most common matches; it's basically a continuity from when search engines stopped listening to your queries and just decided what query they wanted to respond to - and it suddenly became nearly impossible to search for people who had the same first name as anyone who was famous or in the news.
I've tried a dozen times to get LLMs to find authors for me, or papers, where I describe what I remember about them fairly exactly. They deliver me a bunch of bestsellers and popular things, over and over again, who don't even match at all large numbers of the criteria I've laid out.
It's why they're dumb and can't accomplish anything original. It's structural. They're inherently biased to deliver lowest common denominator work. If you're trying to deliver something original or unusual, what bubbles up is samplings of the slop that surrounds us every day. They're fed everything, meaning everything in proportion to its presence in the world. The vast majority of things are shit, or better said, repetitions of the same shit that isn't productive. The things that are most readily available are already tapped out. The things that are productive are obscure.
You can't even get LLMs to say some words by asking them to "say word X." They just will always find a word that will fill that slot "better." As I said, this is just google saying "did you mean Y?" But it's not asking anymore, it's telling.
edit: It's also why asking it to solve obscure math problems is a dumb test. If the math problem is obscure enough, and there's only one way to possibly solve it, and somebody did it once, somewhere, or referred to the possibility of solving it that way, once, somewhere, you're going to have a single salient example. It's not a greenfield, it's not a white sheet of paper: it's a green field with one yellow flower on it, or a piece of white paper with one black sentence on it, and you're asking it to find the flower or explain the sentence.
edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47346901 - I'm late and long-winded.
For quite a while, I like use LLM to refine and fix my grammar issue, but my colleagues and professors reminds me that it was way too obvious. They said they can tolerate some mistakes in my words, but no tolerance for AI generated content.
Thanks for putting this so nicely! We'd much rather hear you in your own voice, and the cost of a few mistakes is far less than the cost of losing that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Me not native speeker. AI help me too get my point front much more cleanly. It hard not look like dummy. Im of course exaggerating, but it is so easy just to run the text through an AI to make it sound "better" without changing what im trying to express. --- I’m not a native speaker, so AI helps me get my point across more clearly. It’s hard not to come across like a dummy otherwise. Of course I’m exaggerating, but i…
The removal of the quotes around "better" discards an entire layer of meaning. It also loses the voice that was present in the 'before' version. Typos/misuses and all. More tangibly, an entire layer of meaning was dropped when it removed the quotes around 'better'.
Please reply in Swedish only. Remember to not use any tool to translate to avoid subtle layers of meaning being removed. It's easy! /Native speaker ;)
For quite a while, I like use LLM to refine and fix my grammar issue, but my colleagues and professors reminds me that it was way too obvious. They said they can tolerate some mistakes in my words, but no tolerance for AI generated content.
However, this isn't an entirely new phenomenon. There is a company in Spain called Audens that manufactures croquettes. People prefer hand-made croquettes instead of industrially produced, and they usually can tell the difference by how perfectly regular industrial croquettes are, so Audens developed this method to produce irregular croquettes. Each individual croquette is slightly different, creating a homemade feel that appeals to consumers.
If it's too perfect, it isn't human.