4 ms·

I think the real problem is that AI quality falls short of the wild promises. Labeling what is "AI" would be like highlighting in an email what I'm obligated t

I think the real problem is that AI quality falls short of the wild promises. Labeling what is "AI" would be like highlighting in an email what I'm obligated to say by HR, my boss, etc. It doesn't make anything less boneheaded. Human effort was already low before AI and now it's even lower. Garbage in, garbage out.

johnsmith1840 4mo ago
AI having poor quality is a bad take like over a year ago.
- cwmoore 4mo ago
  Depending on what you or another means by "quality", it may not have any at all.
- folkrav 4mo ago
  Meh. Just this week, I've had two Sonnet 4.8 agents generate, in parallel, a 2000 line wall of brittle bullshit, and a well architected solution with 20% of the amount of code, to the same problem, from the exact same initial context, and very similar prompts. Come on, they can do poor quality work too.
esikich 4mo ago
I think this is because a lot of people think more is more. Wow look at all the detail and bullet points! No one on the receiving end actually wants that though. When I use AI to write, it's to boil it down to the minimum bits needed. I wish more people would use it that way.
- SchemaLoad 4mo ago
  It's the empty calories of literature. More would be more if there actually was more but AI writing is making it bigger without adding anything actually more. It inserts loads of fluff and repetition that takes longer to read but doesn't exchange more information or ideas.
  - _carbyau_ 4mo ago
    Which is why so many people want to see the prompt that generated the text. Because the prompt is the quintessence of intent regarding the information to be conveyed.
    - kombookcha 4mo ago
      I always have a strong hunch that it would be vastly more efficient if they just sent me whatever the prompt was, rather than the output. If you blow 2-3 sentences of intentional information up into a verbose e-mail, you're needlessly wasting both your and my time. Just send me the 2-3 sentences of actual stuff!
  - skydhash 4mo ago
    Lossy expansion of information.
- HKH2 4mo ago
  Nah on the receiving end an AI makes a summary of it.

johnsmith1840 4mo ago

AI having poor quality is a bad take like over a year ago.

cwmoore 4mo ago
Depending on what you or another means by "quality", it may not have any at all.
folkrav 4mo ago
Meh. Just this week, I've had two Sonnet 4.8 agents generate, in parallel, a 2000 line wall of brittle bullshit, and a well architected solution with 20% of the amount of code, to the same problem, from the exact same initial context, and very similar prompts. Come on, they can do poor quality work too.

esikich 4mo ago

I think this is because a lot of people think more is more. Wow look at all the detail and bullet points! No one on the receiving end actually wants that though. When I use AI to write, it's to boil it down to the minimum bits needed. I wish more people would use it that way.

SchemaLoad 4mo ago
It's the empty calories of literature. More would be more if there actually was more but AI writing is making it bigger without adding anything actually more. It inserts loads of fluff and repetition that takes longer to read but doesn't exchange more information or ideas.
- _carbyau_ 4mo ago
  Which is why so many people want to see the prompt that generated the text. Because the prompt is the quintessence of intent regarding the information to be conveyed.
  - kombookcha 4mo ago
    I always have a strong hunch that it would be vastly more efficient if they just sent me whatever the prompt was, rather than the output. If you blow 2-3 sentences of intentional information up into a verbose e-mail, you're needlessly wasting both your and my time. Just send me the 2-3 sentences of actual stuff!
- skydhash 4mo ago
  Lossy expansion of information.
HKH2 4mo ago
Nah on the receiving end an AI makes a summary of it.