4 ms·

> the exact inverse of how I most often use AI, which is to throw a ton of information at it in a large prompt It sounds to me that you don't make the effort t

by palata 2y ago

> the exact inverse of how I most often use AI, which is to throw a ton of information at it in a large prompt It sounds to me that you don't make the effort to absorb the information. You cherry-pick stuff that pops in your head or that you find online, throw that into an LLM and let it convince you that it created something sound. To me it confirms what the article says: it's not worth reading what you produce this way. I am not interested in that eloquent text that your LLM produced (and that you modify just enough to feel good saying it's your work); it won't bring me anything I couldn't get by quickly thinking about it or quickly making a web search. I don't need to talk to you, you are not interesting. But if you spend the time to actually absorb that information, realise that you need to read even more, actually make your own opinion and get to a point where we could have an actual discussion about that topic, then I'm interested. An LLM will not get you there, and getting there is not done in 2 minutes. That's precisely why it is interesting.

_qswe 2y ago
You're making a weirdly uncharitable assumption. I'm referring to information which I largely or entirely wrote myself, or which I otherwise have proprietary access to, not which I randomly cherry-picked from scattershot Google results. Synthesizing large amounts of information into smaller more focused outputs is something LLMs happen to excel at. Doing the exact same work more slowly by hand just to prove a point to someone on HN isn't a productive way to deliver business value.
- palata 2y ago
  > Doing the exact same work more slowly by hand just to prove a point to someone on HN isn't a productive way to deliver business value. You prove my point again: it's not "just to prove a point". It's about internalising the information, improving your ability to synthesise and be critical. Sure, if your only objective is to "deliver business value", maybe you make more money by being uninteresting with an LLM. My point is that if you get good at doing all that without an LLM, then you become a more interesting person. You will be able to have an actual discussion with a real human and be interesting.
  - _qswe 2y ago
    Understanding or being interesting has nothing to do with it. We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers. Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well.
    - palata 2y ago
      > We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. We don't use calculators for writing. We don't use API requests for writing (except when we make an LLM write for us). > Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well. I don't know what your job is. But if your job is to produce text that is meant to be read by humans, then it feels like not being able to synthesise your ideas yourself doesn't make you excellent at doing your job. Again maybe it makes you productive. Many developers, for instance, get paid for writing bad code (either because those who pay don't care about quality or can't make a difference, or something else). Vibe coding obviously makes those developers more productive. But I don't believe it will make them learn how to produce good code. Good for them if they make money like this, of course.
      - _qswe 2y ago
        We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. No one said anything about vibe coding. Using tools appropriately to accomplish tasks more quickly is just common sense. Deliberately choosing to pay 10x the cost for the same or equivalent output isn't a rational business decision, regardless of whether the task happens to be writing, long division, or anything else. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against doing things manually as a learning exercise or creative outlet. Sometimes the journey is the point; sometimes the destination is the point. Both are valid. I don't know what your job is. Here's one: prepping first drafts of legal docs with AI assistance before handing them off to lawyers for revision has objectively saved significant amounts of time and money. Without AI this would have been too time-consuming to be worthwhile, but with AI I've saved not only my own time but the costs of billable hours on phone calls to discuss requirements, lawyers writing first drafts on their own, and additional Q&A and revisions over email. Using AI makes it practical to skip the first two parts and cut down on the third significantly. Here's another one: writing technical reports for my day job. Before they'd integrated AI into their platform, I would frequently get rave reviews for the quality and professionalism of my issue reports. After they added AI writing assistance, nothing changed other than my ability to generate a greater number of reports in the same number of billable hours. What you're suggesting effectively amounts to choosing to deliver less value out of ego. I still have to understand my own work product, or I wouldn't be able to produce it even with AI assistance. If someone thinks that somehow makes the product less "interesting", well then I guess it's a good thing my job isn't entertainment.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > deliver business value. I think that mindet directly correlates with the kind of AI hat prompted this article: "It doesn't matter" in your eyes. You don't see the task as important, only the output and that it makes you money. the craft is less important than what you can sell it for.
  - _qswe 2y ago
    They're just different use cases. There's a difference between a learning exercise and a contractual engagement to deliver a product to a client.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Yes, a learning exercise has a goal to extend your own knowledge. Business is, especially as of late, figuring out how to get the cheapest but still acceptable work to the recipient for the highest value. I suppose it's on the recipient for not checking the quality of their commission.
      - _qswe 2y ago
        I'm not sure why you're randomly insinuating otherwise, but I've only received positive feedback on the quality of my work.

by palata 2y ago

_qswe 2y ago

You're making a weirdly uncharitable assumption. I'm referring to information which I largely or entirely wrote myself, or which I otherwise have proprietary access to, not which I randomly cherry-picked from scattershot Google results. Synthesizing large amounts of information into smaller more focused outputs is something LLMs happen to excel at. Doing the exact same work more slowly by hand just to prove a point to someone on HN isn't a productive way to deliver business value.

palata 2y ago
> Doing the exact same work more slowly by hand just to prove a point to someone on HN isn't a productive way to deliver business value. You prove my point again: it's not "just to prove a point". It's about internalising the information, improving your ability to synthesise and be critical. Sure, if your only objective is to "deliver business value", maybe you make more money by being uninteresting with an LLM. My point is that if you get good at doing all that without an LLM, then you become a more interesting person. You will be able to have an actual discussion with a real human and be interesting.
- _qswe 2y ago
  Understanding or being interesting has nothing to do with it. We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers. Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well.
  - palata 2y ago
    > We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. We don't use calculators for writing. We don't use API requests for writing (except when we make an LLM write for us). > Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well. I don't know what your job is. But if your job is to produce text that is meant to be read by humans, then it feels like not being able to synthesise your ideas yourself doesn't make you excellent at doing your job. Again maybe it makes you productive. Many developers, for instance, get paid for writing bad code (either because those who pay don't care about quality or can't make a difference, or something else). Vibe coding obviously makes those developers more productive. But I don't believe it will make them learn how to produce good code. Good for them if they make money like this, of course.
    - _qswe 2y ago
      We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. No one said anything about vibe coding. Using tools appropriately to accomplish tasks more quickly is just common sense. Deliberately choosing to pay 10x the cost for the same or equivalent output isn't a rational business decision, regardless of whether the task happens to be writing, long division, or anything else. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against doing things manually as a learning exercise or creative outlet. Sometimes the journey is the point; sometimes the destination is the point. Both are valid. I don't know what your job is. Here's one: prepping first drafts of legal docs with AI assistance before handing them off to lawyers for revision has objectively saved significant amounts of time and money. Without AI this would have been too time-consuming to be worthwhile, but with AI I've saved not only my own time but the costs of billable hours on phone calls to discuss requirements, lawyers writing first drafts on their own, and additional Q&A and revisions over email. Using AI makes it practical to skip the first two parts and cut down on the third significantly. Here's another one: writing technical reports for my day job. Before they'd integrated AI into their platform, I would frequently get rave reviews for the quality and professionalism of my issue reports. After they added AI writing assistance, nothing changed other than my ability to generate a greater number of reports in the same number of billable hours. What you're suggesting effectively amounts to choosing to deliver less value out of ego. I still have to understand my own work product, or I wouldn't be able to produce it even with AI assistance. If someone thinks that somehow makes the product less "interesting", well then I guess it's a good thing my job isn't entertainment.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
> deliver business value. I think that mindet directly correlates with the kind of AI hat prompted this article: "It doesn't matter" in your eyes. You don't see the task as important, only the output and that it makes you money. the craft is less important than what you can sell it for.
- _qswe 2y ago
  They're just different use cases. There's a difference between a learning exercise and a contractual engagement to deliver a product to a client.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Yes, a learning exercise has a goal to extend your own knowledge. Business is, especially as of late, figuring out how to get the cheapest but still acceptable work to the recipient for the highest value. I suppose it's on the recipient for not checking the quality of their commission.
    - _qswe 2y ago
      I'm not sure why you're randomly insinuating otherwise, but I've only received positive feedback on the quality of my work.