4 ms·

So basically “you’re holding it wrong?”

by frizlab 9mo ago

greggoB 9mo ago
I found this a pretty apt - if terse - reply. I'd appreciate someone explaining why it deserves being downvoted?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- Leynos 9mo ago
  It's something of a thought terminating cliché in Hacker News discussions about large language models and agentic coding tools.
- mostlysimilar 9mo ago
  There are two camps who have largely made up their minds just talking past each other, instinctively upvoting/downvoting their camp, etc. These threads are nearly useless, maybe a few people on the fringes change their minds but mostly it's just the same tired arguments back and forth.
- hug 9mo ago
  Because in its brevity it loses all ability to defend itself from any kind of reasonable rebuttal. It's not an actual attempt to continue the conversation, it's just a semantic stop-sign. It's almost always used in this fashion, not just in the context of LLM discussions, but in this specific case it's particularly frustrating because "yes, you're holding it wrong" is a good answer. To go further into detail about the whole thing: "You're holding it wrong" is perfectly valid criticism in many, many different ways and fields. It's a strong criticism in some, and weak in others, but almost always the advice is still useful. Anyone complaining about getting hurt by holding a knife by the blade, for example, is the strongest example of the advice being perfect. The tool is working as designed, cutting the thing with pressure on the blade, which happens to be their hand. Left-handers using right-handed scissors provides a reasonable example: I know a bunch of left-handers who can cut properly with right-handed scissors and not with left-handed scissors. Me included, if I don't consciously adjust my behaviour. Why? Because they have been trained to hold scissors wrong (by positioning the hand to create opposite push/pull forces to natural), so that they can use the poor tool given to them. When you give them left-handed scissors and they try to use the same reversed push/pull, the scissors won't cut well because their blades are being separated. There is no good solution to this, and I sympathise with people stuck on either side of this gap. Still, learn to hold scissors differently. And, of course, the weakest, and the case where the snark is deserved: if you're holding your iPhone 4 with the pad of your palm bridging the antenna, holding it differently still resolves your immediate problem. The phone should have been designed such that it didn't have this problem, but it does, and that sucks, and Apple is at fault here. (Although I personally think it was blown out of proportion, which is neither here nor there.) In the case of LLMs, the language of the prompt is the primary interface -- if you want to learn to use the tool better, you need to learn to prompt it better. You need to learn how to hold it better. Someone who knows how to prompt it well, reading the kind of prompts the author used, is well within their rights to point out that the author is prompting it wrong, and anyone attempting to subvert that entire line of argument with a trite little four-sentence bit of snark in whatever the total opposite of intellectual curiosity is deserves the downvotes they get.
  - frizlab 9mo ago
    Except this was posted because the situation is akin to the original context in which this phrase was said. Initial postulate: you have a perfect tool that anybody can use and is completely magic. Someone says: it does not work well. Answer: it’s your fault, you’re using it wrong. In that case it is not a perfect tool that anybody can use. It is just yet another tool, with it flaws and learning curve, that may or may not work depending on the problem at hand. And it’s ok! It is definitely a valid answer. But the “it’s magic” narrative has got to go.
    - pixl97 9mo ago
      >Initial postulate: you have a perfect tool that anybody can use and is completely magic. >Someone says: it does not work well. Why do we argue with two people that are both building strawmen. It doesn't accomplish much. We keep calling AI 'unintelligent' but peoples eagar willingness to make incorrect arguments does put some doubts on humanity itself.
- conception 9mo ago
  It’s just dismissive of the idea that you have to learn how use LLMs vs a design flaw in a cell phone that was dismissed as user error. It’s the same as if he had said “I keep typing HTML into VS code and it keeps not displaying it for me. It just keeps showing the code. But it’s made to make webpages, right? people keep telling me I don’t know how to use it but it’s just not showing me the webpage.”
steveklabnik 9mo ago
Do you think it's impossible to ever hold a tool incorrectly, or use a tool in a way that's suboptimal?
- mrguyorama 9mo ago
  If that tool is sold as "This magic wand will magically fix all your problems" then no, it's not possible to hold it incorrectly.
  - steveklabnik 9mo ago
    Gotcha. I don't see these tools as being a magic wand nor being able to magically fix every problem. I agree that anyone who sells them that way is overstating their usefulness.
  - orangecat 9mo ago
    If your position is that any product that doesn't live up to all its marketing claims is worthless, you're going to have a very limited selection.
  - wvenable 9mo ago
    Why does it matter how it's sold? Unless you're overpaying for what it's actually capable of, it doesn't really matter.
    - callc 9mo ago
      We all have skin in the game when how it’s sold is “automated intelligence so that we can fire all our knowledge workers” Might be good in some timelines. In our current timeline this will just mean even more extreme concentration of wealth, and worse quality of life for everyone. Maybe when the world has a lot more safety nets so that not having a job doesn’t mean homelessness, starvation, no healthcare, then society will be more receptive to the “this tool can replace everybody” message.
      - wvenable 9mo ago
theptip 9mo ago
I’d say “skill issue” since this is a domain where there are actually plenty of ways to “hold it wrong” and lots of ink spilled on how to hold it better, and your phrasing connotes dismissal of user despair which is not my intent. (I’m dismissive of calling the tool broken though.)
dannersy 9mo ago
Every time this is what I'm told. The difference between learning how to Google properly and then the amount of hoops and in-depth understanding you need to get something useful out of these supposedly revolutionary tools is absurd. I am pretty tired of people trying to convince me that AI, and very specifically generative AI, is the great thing they say it is. It is also a red flag to see anyone refer to these tools as intelligence as it seems the marketing of calling this "AI" has finally sewn its way into our discourse that even tech forums think the prediction machine is intelligent.
- danielbln 9mo ago
  "The thing I've learned years ago that is actually complex but now comes easy to me because I take my priors for granted is much easier than the new thing that just came out" Also, that "it's not really intelligence" horse is so dead, it has already turned into crude oil.
  - frizlab 9mo ago
    > Also, that "it's not really intelligence" horse is so dead, it has already turned into crude oil. Why? Is it intelligence now? I think not.
    - danielbln 9mo ago
      Would you mind defining "intelligence" for me?
      - Terr_ 9mo ago
        If you're the one saying it exists, you go first. :p
      - frizlab 9mo ago
        There are many types of intelligence. If you want to go to useless places, using certain definitions of intelligence, yes, we can consider AI “intelligent.” But it’s useless.
Workaccount2 9mo ago
Remember when "Googling" was a skill? LLMs are definitely in the same boat. It's even more specific where different models have different quirks so the more time you spend with one, the better the results you get from that one.
- dude250711 9mo ago
  Those skills will age faster than Knockout.js.
  - petesergeant 9mo ago
    Why would a skill that's being actively exercised against the state of the art, daily, age poorly?

So basically “you’re holding it wrong?”

by frizlab 9mo ago

So basically “you’re holding it wrong?”

greggoB 9mo ago

I found this a pretty apt - if terse - reply. I'd appreciate someone explaining why it deserves being downvoted?

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
Leynos 9mo ago
It's something of a thought terminating cliché in Hacker News discussions about large language models and agentic coding tools.
mostlysimilar 9mo ago
There are two camps who have largely made up their minds just talking past each other, instinctively upvoting/downvoting their camp, etc. These threads are nearly useless, maybe a few people on the fringes change their minds but mostly it's just the same tired arguments back and forth.
hug 9mo ago
Because in its brevity it loses all ability to defend itself from any kind of reasonable rebuttal. It's not an actual attempt to continue the conversation, it's just a semantic stop-sign. It's almost always used in this fashion, not just in the context of LLM discussions, but in this specific case it's particularly frustrating because "yes, you're holding it wrong" is a good answer. To go further into detail about the whole thing: "You're holding it wrong" is perfectly valid criticism in many, many different ways and fields. It's a strong criticism in some, and weak in others, but almost always the advice is still useful. Anyone complaining about getting hurt by holding a knife by the blade, for example, is the strongest example of the advice being perfect. The tool is working as designed, cutting the thing with pressure on the blade, which happens to be their hand. Left-handers using right-handed scissors provides a reasonable example: I know a bunch of left-handers who can cut properly with right-handed scissors and not with left-handed scissors. Me included, if I don't consciously adjust my behaviour. Why? Because they have been trained to hold scissors wrong (by positioning the hand to create opposite push/pull forces to natural), so that they can use the poor tool given to them. When you give them left-handed scissors and they try to use the same reversed push/pull, the scissors won't cut well because their blades are being separated. There is no good solution to this, and I sympathise with people stuck on either side of this gap. Still, learn to hold scissors differently. And, of course, the weakest, and the case where the snark is deserved: if you're holding your iPhone 4 with the pad of your palm bridging the antenna, holding it differently still resolves your immediate problem. The phone should have been designed such that it didn't have this problem, but it does, and that sucks, and Apple is at fault here. (Although I personally think it was blown out of proportion, which is neither here nor there.) In the case of LLMs, the language of the prompt is the primary interface -- if you want to learn to use the tool better, you need to learn to prompt it better. You need to learn how to hold it better. Someone who knows how to prompt it well, reading the kind of prompts the author used, is well within their rights to point out that the author is prompting it wrong, and anyone attempting to subvert that entire line of argument with a trite little four-sentence bit of snark in whatever the total opposite of intellectual curiosity is deserves the downvotes they get.
- frizlab 9mo ago
  Except this was posted because the situation is akin to the original context in which this phrase was said. Initial postulate: you have a perfect tool that anybody can use and is completely magic. Someone says: it does not work well. Answer: it’s your fault, you’re using it wrong. In that case it is not a perfect tool that anybody can use. It is just yet another tool, with it flaws and learning curve, that may or may not work depending on the problem at hand. And it’s ok! It is definitely a valid answer. But the “it’s magic” narrative has got to go.
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    >Initial postulate: you have a perfect tool that anybody can use and is completely magic. >Someone says: it does not work well. Why do we argue with two people that are both building strawmen. It doesn't accomplish much. We keep calling AI 'unintelligent' but peoples eagar willingness to make incorrect arguments does put some doubts on humanity itself.
conception 9mo ago
It’s just dismissive of the idea that you have to learn how use LLMs vs a design flaw in a cell phone that was dismissed as user error. It’s the same as if he had said “I keep typing HTML into VS code and it keeps not displaying it for me. It just keeps showing the code. But it’s made to make webpages, right? people keep telling me I don’t know how to use it but it’s just not showing me the webpage.”

steveklabnik 9mo ago

Do you think it's impossible to ever hold a tool incorrectly, or use a tool in a way that's suboptimal?

mrguyorama 9mo ago
If that tool is sold as "This magic wand will magically fix all your problems" then no, it's not possible to hold it incorrectly.
- steveklabnik 9mo ago
  Gotcha. I don't see these tools as being a magic wand nor being able to magically fix every problem. I agree that anyone who sells them that way is overstating their usefulness.
- orangecat 9mo ago
  If your position is that any product that doesn't live up to all its marketing claims is worthless, you're going to have a very limited selection.
- wvenable 9mo ago
  Why does it matter how it's sold? Unless you're overpaying for what it's actually capable of, it doesn't really matter.
  - callc 9mo ago
    We all have skin in the game when how it’s sold is “automated intelligence so that we can fire all our knowledge workers” Might be good in some timelines. In our current timeline this will just mean even more extreme concentration of wealth, and worse quality of life for everyone. Maybe when the world has a lot more safety nets so that not having a job doesn’t mean homelessness, starvation, no healthcare, then society will be more receptive to the “this tool can replace everybody” message.
    - wvenable 9mo ago

theptip 9mo ago

I’d say “skill issue” since this is a domain where there are actually plenty of ways to “hold it wrong” and lots of ink spilled on how to hold it better, and your phrasing connotes dismissal of user despair which is not my intent. (I’m dismissive of calling the tool broken though.)

dannersy 9mo ago

Every time this is what I'm told. The difference between learning how to Google properly and then the amount of hoops and in-depth understanding you need to get something useful out of these supposedly revolutionary tools is absurd. I am pretty tired of people trying to convince me that AI, and very specifically generative AI, is the great thing they say it is. It is also a red flag to see anyone refer to these tools as intelligence as it seems the marketing of calling this "AI" has finally sewn its way into our discourse that even tech forums think the prediction machine is intelligent.

danielbln 9mo ago
"The thing I've learned years ago that is actually complex but now comes easy to me because I take my priors for granted is much easier than the new thing that just came out" Also, that "it's not really intelligence" horse is so dead, it has already turned into crude oil.
- frizlab 9mo ago
  > Also, that "it's not really intelligence" horse is so dead, it has already turned into crude oil. Why? Is it intelligence now? I think not.
  - danielbln 9mo ago
    Would you mind defining "intelligence" for me?
    - Terr_ 9mo ago
      If you're the one saying it exists, you go first. :p
    - frizlab 9mo ago
      There are many types of intelligence. If you want to go to useless places, using certain definitions of intelligence, yes, we can consider AI “intelligent.” But it’s useless.

Workaccount2 9mo ago

Remember when "Googling" was a skill? LLMs are definitely in the same boat. It's even more specific where different models have different quirks so the more time you spend with one, the better the results you get from that one.

dude250711 9mo ago
Those skills will age faster than Knockout.js.
- petesergeant 9mo ago
  Why would a skill that's being actively exercised against the state of the art, daily, age poorly?