5 ms·

Daniel Stenberg[1] brought up a good point: the complexity here is that curl is used all over the world, and there's certainly nothing wrong with a non-English

Daniel Stenberg[1] brought up a good point: the complexity here is that curl is used all over the world, and there's certainly nothing wrong with a non-English speaker using an LLM to help write their bug report. So the superficial giveaways that the English text is LLM-generated doesn't necessarily mean the report's content was LLM-generated. [1] https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2024/01/02/the-i-in-llm-stands-for-intelligence/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2024/01/02/the-i-in-llm-stands-f...

ericbarrett 3y ago
He makes a great point, but I think writing in an authentic, un-augmented voice will very quickly become the only way to be noticed. Which is a shame for otherwise benign uses of the tool.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
That’s absolutely fair IMO, but they aren’t use it right if that’s what’s happening. LLMs can do a decent job translating, and they should have written their bug report in their native language and asked for a translation. Then translated responses, wrote their response, and translated back This appears to be “write a bug report about X” then “write a response to triager for their reply Y” without intermediating, let alone factually checking the output. That use doesn’t fall prey to LLM voice because the translation is of your text and phrasing. God bless people who use LLMs to improve their life, translate, etc. But using them to think isn’t acceptable.
skepticATX 3y ago
> I do however suspect that if you just add an ever so tiny (intelligent) human check to the mix, the use and outcome of any such tools will become so much better. I suspect that will be true for a long time into the future as well. I love this paragraph. I think that generative AI companies, especially OpenAI, have completely dropped the ball when it comes to their marketing. The narrative (that these companies encourage and often times are responsible for) is that AI is intelligent and will be a replacement for humans in the near future. So is it really a surprise when people do things like this? LLMs don’t shine as independent agents. They shine when they augment our skills. Microsoft has the right idea by calling everything “copilot”, but unfortunately OpenAI drives the narrative, not Microsoft.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  It's also a better company strategy to be an augment vs replacement. Like, advertise that you can get twice as much done not that you can get the same amount done with half the effort. If somebody spends 10M on Labor then at best you can change 10M to replace their labor costs. Lets say its 1,000 people. If you instead argue that those people are now 2x as efficient you can sell the company of the idea of paying for 2,000 seats when their company grows.
  - richardwhiuk 3y ago
    That assume the company has the requirement to have 2x the work. If not, the argument becomes: a) Get rid of 1000 people b) Get rid of 500 people, by making 500 people 2x efficient. Option (a) is clearly better.
    - pdimitar 3y ago
      Option A is not clearly better because it assumes you can actually completely get rid of the 1000 people. I don't think we've seen much evidence of this. If anything, I do believe I've seen evidence that option B is more realistic and doable. It always baffles me though, how people pick what they believe in with zero supporting evidence, just because it sounds better... with zero context.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        It's not zero context; this thread is about using AI to augment human productivity vs Ai to replace humans. The supporting evidence is just the math. (A) If I sell you a product that makes your employees twice as productive then my revenue scales with your employee count. (B) If I sell you a product that eliminates your employees then my _maximum_ revenue is your current employee count. With (A) I have a unlimited revenue cap while with (B) it's cap'd at your current employee count. I also didn't invent this approach so there's other people that think this too. It's not that (B) is bad; it's just that (A) is better. It's similar to say selling people a cable subscription without ads; it's just better (more revenue) to both sell them a subscription and give them ads.
dang 3y ago
Ok, we've changed the URL from https://hackerone.com/reports/2298307 https://hackerone.com/reports/2298307 to that link. Thanks!
renonce 3y ago
The author could have provided his original conversation with LLM in his native language for anyone else to verify, so this is not an excuse for using LLM to write crap. The point is that whether the author wrote the text himself or an LLM helped the author write it, the author is ultimately responsible for the content, and the author should only be responsible for his own writings, not LLM outputs.

ericbarrett 3y ago

He makes a great point, but I think writing in an authentic, un-augmented voice will very quickly become the only way to be noticed. Which is a shame for otherwise benign uses of the tool.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

That’s absolutely fair IMO, but they aren’t use it right if that’s what’s happening. LLMs can do a decent job translating, and they should have written their bug report in their native language and asked for a translation. Then translated responses, wrote their response, and translated back This appears to be “write a bug report about X” then “write a response to triager for their reply Y” without intermediating, let alone factually checking the output. That use doesn’t fall prey to LLM voice because the translation is of your text and phrasing. God bless people who use LLMs to improve their life, translate, etc. But using them to think isn’t acceptable.

skepticATX 3y ago

> I do however suspect that if you just add an ever so tiny (intelligent) human check to the mix, the use and outcome of any such tools will become so much better. I suspect that will be true for a long time into the future as well. I love this paragraph. I think that generative AI companies, especially OpenAI, have completely dropped the ball when it comes to their marketing. The narrative (that these companies encourage and often times are responsible for) is that AI is intelligent and will be a replacement for humans in the near future. So is it really a surprise when people do things like this? LLMs don’t shine as independent agents. They shine when they augment our skills. Microsoft has the right idea by calling everything “copilot”, but unfortunately OpenAI drives the narrative, not Microsoft.

lesuorac 3y ago
It's also a better company strategy to be an augment vs replacement. Like, advertise that you can get twice as much done not that you can get the same amount done with half the effort. If somebody spends 10M on Labor then at best you can change 10M to replace their labor costs. Lets say its 1,000 people. If you instead argue that those people are now 2x as efficient you can sell the company of the idea of paying for 2,000 seats when their company grows.
- richardwhiuk 3y ago
  That assume the company has the requirement to have 2x the work. If not, the argument becomes: a) Get rid of 1000 people b) Get rid of 500 people, by making 500 people 2x efficient. Option (a) is clearly better.
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    Option A is not clearly better because it assumes you can actually completely get rid of the 1000 people. I don't think we've seen much evidence of this. If anything, I do believe I've seen evidence that option B is more realistic and doable. It always baffles me though, how people pick what they believe in with zero supporting evidence, just because it sounds better... with zero context.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      It's not zero context; this thread is about using AI to augment human productivity vs Ai to replace humans. The supporting evidence is just the math. (A) If I sell you a product that makes your employees twice as productive then my revenue scales with your employee count. (B) If I sell you a product that eliminates your employees then my _maximum_ revenue is your current employee count. With (A) I have a unlimited revenue cap while with (B) it's cap'd at your current employee count. I also didn't invent this approach so there's other people that think this too. It's not that (B) is bad; it's just that (A) is better. It's similar to say selling people a cable subscription without ads; it's just better (more revenue) to both sell them a subscription and give them ads.

dang 3y ago

Ok, we've changed the URL from https://hackerone.com/reports/2298307 https://hackerone.com/reports/2298307 to that link. Thanks!

renonce 3y ago

The author could have provided his original conversation with LLM in his native language for anyone else to verify, so this is not an excuse for using LLM to write crap. The point is that whether the author wrote the text himself or an LLM helped the author write it, the author is ultimately responsible for the content, and the author should only be responsible for his own writings, not LLM outputs.