3 ms·

You do realize that when you have to find a special use case to defend something you are really giving an argument AGAINST casual widespread use of it.

by emsign 5mo ago

voakbasda 5mo ago
I disagree. It would be a wonderful world where every overseas contractor that I interacted with used the AI tools in this fashion. Even among native speakers, literacy is way down. AI could help with that… if people actually do the work. That’s the real problem, not AI: no one wants to do the work. That is purely a PEBKAC situation.
- emsign 5mo ago
  Science says the opposite, sorry. People lose their language skills when they outsource their thinking to AI. You can believ what you want want but that doesn't change the facts.
  - daveguy 5mo ago
    Pretty sure the references you are referring to are about losing coding skills, which is a very different set of skills than language skills. The kagi link (1) a sibling comment left was an example of an AI that can improve writing while also informing about better writing style. As opposed to the slop grenade, which is outsourcing thinking to AI. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48219992#48221497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48219992#48221497 The point is, you don't have to outsource your thinking to use AI, if it's a good AI tool. But most AI companies are coming from a hyper-scaling mindset where addicting the user to the product is the same as substituting hard thinking for easy dopamine hits. The most ridiculous benchmark I have seen in AI is the tendency to say the longer an agent can work and some minimal accuracy is a good thing. That just means you have 30 steps to find an error in instead of 3, and you are much more likely to just abdicate thought instead of the hard work of proofing 30 steps yourself. AI companies and evaluators are losing the point.
- YurgenJurgensen 5mo ago
  If you can’t explain it to a human; you can’t explain it to a bot. I’d rather have people just send messages in their native language than correct their broken English with LLMs or send machine translations. At least that way I’d have a record of exactly what they intended to say.
948382828528 5mo ago
[dead]
great_wubwub 5mo ago
Are you arguing that trying to write more clearly is a 'special use case'?

You do realize that when you have to find a special use case to defend something you are really giving an argument AGAINST casual widespread use of it.

by emsign 5mo ago

You do realize that when you have to find a special use case to defend something you are really giving an argument AGAINST casual widespread use of it.

voakbasda 5mo ago

I disagree. It would be a wonderful world where every overseas contractor that I interacted with used the AI tools in this fashion. Even among native speakers, literacy is way down. AI could help with that… if people actually do the work. That’s the real problem, not AI: no one wants to do the work. That is purely a PEBKAC situation.

emsign 5mo ago
Science says the opposite, sorry. People lose their language skills when they outsource their thinking to AI. You can believ what you want want but that doesn't change the facts.
- daveguy 5mo ago
  Pretty sure the references you are referring to are about losing coding skills, which is a very different set of skills than language skills. The kagi link (1) a sibling comment left was an example of an AI that can improve writing while also informing about better writing style. As opposed to the slop grenade, which is outsourcing thinking to AI. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48219992#48221497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48219992#48221497 The point is, you don't have to outsource your thinking to use AI, if it's a good AI tool. But most AI companies are coming from a hyper-scaling mindset where addicting the user to the product is the same as substituting hard thinking for easy dopamine hits. The most ridiculous benchmark I have seen in AI is the tendency to say the longer an agent can work and some minimal accuracy is a good thing. That just means you have 30 steps to find an error in instead of 3, and you are much more likely to just abdicate thought instead of the hard work of proofing 30 steps yourself. AI companies and evaluators are losing the point.
YurgenJurgensen 5mo ago
If you can’t explain it to a human; you can’t explain it to a bot. I’d rather have people just send messages in their native language than correct their broken English with LLMs or send machine translations. At least that way I’d have a record of exactly what they intended to say.

948382828528 5mo ago

[dead]

great_wubwub 5mo ago

Are you arguing that trying to write more clearly is a 'special use case'?