3 ms·

Discussions with the "people who are using it productively" happen all the time here on HN and among our colleages in real life. It's not like you can escape it

Discussions with the "people who are using it productively" happen all the time here on HN and among our colleages in real life. It's not like you can escape it. But those discussions don't crest the hill because the "verified" work consistently either fails to be addressing a challenge that the skeptics encounter or has qualities that the skeptics can't imagine themselves possessing. The reality is that we all approach our work differently and all carry different standards in what we accept in the work we produce. It's clear that generative AI genuinely helps some people improve their work or ease their burden of producing it, but it should also be clear at this point that the people it doesn't seem to help are not being failed for lack of having learned about its use cases. We're 2+ years in and are saturated with the hype and with such examples. It's just not as universally useful as some people (for whatever reason) want to believe.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
On the flip side, I think a lot of skepticism is just cynicism, and you need to ensure that you are evaluating the tool objectively, not just doing the HN sneer the same way we dismiss Javascript or "web". It's fine if you've found a use-case that LLMs aren't so helpful, like nonfiction writing that you don't want to have to constantly verify for hallucinations. Obviously those exist. But don't forget that they are calling into question whether other people really are super productive with LLMs, and that hints at a self-limiting belief.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  That's two different discussions. Your original comment was suggesting that people who haven't found a use-case that works for them just haven't looked hard enough, despite how inescapable the topic and tools are. Some hypothetical person that believes nobody might have a personally effective use case is a different one than what you seemed to be writing about, and completely unrelated to what I was writing about. To be fair, the distinction gets muddy in both directions because some people invest their egos into/against this kind of thing and can't just accept differences as they are. But at that point, with those people, you're just stuck in the same class of endless flamewar debate as emacs vs vim or Xbox vs Playstation and there's really no point in giving time or attention to that.
- elicksaur 2y ago
  I reject the implication that the problem is me or other people who are critical of AI here. I’ve given it a fair shake. Why is user error or literally here a “self-limiting belief” always implied or stated? Almost like I can’t use AI because of a moral failing? C’mon… It honestly sounds like a cult where I don’t know how to read the tea leaves and believe enough. I’ll pass happily and be so self limited :) When AI is actually useful, there won’t be a debate.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Rather a virtue - the protestant work ethic is a mass.social assumption. It's assumed that hard work is a virtue and that people that find a way to cheat will justly receive their consequences. When this belief primes us to search for flaws, we of course find them. AI even with flaws is good enough. I'm happy to pick up the profit on the difference in our beliefs and behaviors. It's easy to simply out compete.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

On the flip side, I think a lot of skepticism is just cynicism, and you need to ensure that you are evaluating the tool objectively, not just doing the HN sneer the same way we dismiss Javascript or "web". It's fine if you've found a use-case that LLMs aren't so helpful, like nonfiction writing that you don't want to have to constantly verify for hallucinations. Obviously those exist. But don't forget that they are calling into question whether other people really are super productive with LLMs, and that hints at a self-limiting belief.

swatcoder 2y ago
That's two different discussions. Your original comment was suggesting that people who haven't found a use-case that works for them just haven't looked hard enough, despite how inescapable the topic and tools are. Some hypothetical person that believes nobody might have a personally effective use case is a different one than what you seemed to be writing about, and completely unrelated to what I was writing about. To be fair, the distinction gets muddy in both directions because some people invest their egos into/against this kind of thing and can't just accept differences as they are. But at that point, with those people, you're just stuck in the same class of endless flamewar debate as emacs vs vim or Xbox vs Playstation and there's really no point in giving time or attention to that.
elicksaur 2y ago
I reject the implication that the problem is me or other people who are critical of AI here. I’ve given it a fair shake. Why is user error or literally here a “self-limiting belief” always implied or stated? Almost like I can’t use AI because of a moral failing? C’mon… It honestly sounds like a cult where I don’t know how to read the tea leaves and believe enough. I’ll pass happily and be so self limited :) When AI is actually useful, there won’t be a debate.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Rather a virtue - the protestant work ethic is a mass.social assumption. It's assumed that hard work is a virtue and that people that find a way to cheat will justly receive their consequences. When this belief primes us to search for flaws, we of course find them. AI even with flaws is good enough. I'm happy to pick up the profit on the difference in our beliefs and behaviors. It's easy to simply out compete.