Hacker News
points by cromka 3 days ago | 0 comments
> I'm not anti-ai but I am firmly anti-make-people-read-llm-output-I-didn't-read-myself, and this breaks this.

This here might hit the nail on the head exactly in terms of what the biggest FOSSes gripe with LLMs with might be: not the fact people use it but rather how it hinders the communication.

If you use it to help the write code, but you explain things in your own words or, at very least, redact and trim LLMs output, it's fine.

If you, however, just drop a wall of text at someone and expect they act on its b/s, this is lazy to the point it borders with microagression.

You wouldn't expect a distinguished professor explain basic maths to a student, and we shouldn't expect actual developers address Copilot's stupid, unredacted hallucinations or otherwise unrelated remarks.

This works for patches submission, too: you should be outright banned for submitting stuff you didn't bother to double check and properly document.

[–] unrented7977 2 days ago
Maybe we should all respond to LLM text walls with aggressively doubled LLM text walls, expanding geometrically until the originating party either gives up or learns to communicate with their own words.
[–] bradknowles 2 days ago
Dueling LLMs in your git repos means that you have nothing but dueling LLMs in your git repos.

It’s the LLM equivalent of “an eye for an eye just makes everyone blind”.

[–] Cthulhu_ 2 days ago
This is the short-term singularity, LLM agents endlessly conversing with another, just churning through tokens to throw noise at each other until it becomes a big ball of LLM turbolanguage.

Either some consensus emerges or it just deadlocks in place. My money is on the latter. I wish my money was in the companies profiting on it three years ago because that's the only way this will financially benefit people.

[–] kyorochan 2 days ago
"An AI for an AI makes the world blind".
[–] pluc 3 days ago
If you could explain what you're doing why would you use LLMs to do it in the fist place? For speed over control? Explaining means you're effectively able to do the modification yourself, and I'm fairly certain that's a low percentage of all AI contributions.
[–] phoghed 3 days ago
Same reason I can explain how to clean my house but I pay someone to do it? I want the end result, I don’t want to do the whole process myself.
[–] lifeisloving 3 days ago
No, most AI users who contributor to OS do not actually know what they're doing. Its a problem. And no amount of analogies about house keepers will change that.
[–] bombcar 2 days ago
That's the problem. We have a bunch of people who know how to do the work arguing about using LLMs to do it and assuming that all the submissions/reviews/etc are being done by people like them who know how to do the work.

Once you're drinking from the firehose you realize just how many idiots (well meaning or not) are out there, and how empowered they are now.

[–] close04 3 days ago
That is one of the biggest gripes for almost anyone I ever met who deals with AI generated content. Nobody really cares that someone else's work was generated with AI as much as they care that it's slop and they need to put in extra effort to work around the author's laziness.

Lazy or incompetent colleagues always forced people around them to overcompensate and correct. AI increased their firepower and blast radius.

[–] bombcar 2 days ago
But you just consume my slop with your Slopmaster 9000™, right?

The end-game for Anthropic is each PR to be 100k+ tokens but nobody cares because they burn 100k+ tokens reviewing and responding.

[–] Cthulhu_ 2 days ago
This is what we as consumers should look out for; what the tools built on top of LLMs try to do. Like it's neat that a tool can summon a dozen subagents with various models to churn out tasks, but if the task at hand is trivial then the amount of tokens used for it should be trivial.

We'll see the tools get adjusted over time to use more and more tokens, or at the very least they get optimized to use every paying customer's tokens for whatever period so that they are on the one side thinking they're getting their money's worth, or on the other that they should upgrade to a higher tier plan. Because the companies are investing trillions into thousands of datacenters and if they sit unused it'd have been a waste of money.

(the datacenters won't go unused I'm sure; any unused capacity will end up on a spot market, with cryptocurrency generation as a constant baseline. I'm pretty confident that crypto will make another small resurgence after the AI / datacenter investment bubble pops. This is a random internet comment, not financial advice)