5 ms·

> If you can't spend the time to write it, why should anyone read it? This isn’t your thought; you are merely regurgitating a sentence we have all heard many t

> If you can't spend the time to write it, why should anyone read it? This isn’t your thought; you are merely regurgitating a sentence we have all heard many times before, practically word for word. Presumably you think there is value in posting yet another copy of that other person’s thoughts in this discussion, despite having spent no time or effort in thinking it up yourself. Why is that? Is it because you think there is inherent value in the sentence you transcribed, in spite of the near zero effort you spent creating it? If you think anybody here should read it, then you have undermined your own point. If you don’t think anybody should read it, then you shouldn’t post it.

sm-silversight 15d ago
How do you know it's not his/her thought? Just because others have had it does not mean he/she did not put effort into considering it.
- abc123abc123 15d ago
  How do you know it is? Most likely we will never know.
- nearbuy 14d ago
  In this comment section alone, 5 people have used some variant of that aphorism, and it's used constantly on hn and other sites. They've heard it.
  - Terr_ 14d ago
    How does that matter? Parent-poster asked about sincerity of thought, not originality. If the spouses-to-be at a marriage ceremony say "I do", would you leap up from the audience to denounce them as frauds because obviously they heard the vow-formula before a hundred times? Hopefully not, and not only for reasons of decorum. In contrast, most of the LLM slop I deal with from coworkers involve statements that--while less formulaic--are ones they can't even recall saying and are unwilling to defend when questioned.
    - nearbuy 14d ago
      JimDabell said they didn't come up with that thought themselves. They never implied the poster didn't mean it. sm-silversight responded, "How do you know it's not his/her thought?" You can reasonably interpret them as asking how we know they didn't come up with that thought independently. If we go with your interpretation instead, then sm-silversight simply misread the comment they replied to and their post doesn't follow. No one doubted OP felt sincere about not wanting to read AI.
unsungNovelty 15d ago
> despite having spent no time or effort in thinking it up yourself. I mean, how can you say that he didn't think it himself? I thought this same thing and realised apparently I'm not the first. You have no idea how many of my blog posts ideas have come in HN first before I could publish. People can have the same thoughts. And have em all the time as well. Psss.. See how @sm-silversight who commented on your post said the same thing I did? That's realtime example right there. Coming back to the topic at hand. I agree with the OP. If you don't care to write it, why should anyone read it? AI has good usecases. But am not sure writing is one. Writing is not just about the end result. It's also about the thought process. I learn about the topic more as I write. I correct my incorrect understandings as I write. When am pissed, my article has a different tone. Am rude, too direct. When am content/happy, different one. All of this is sterilised into something robotic where the author won't even remember what he/she wrote? What's the to like? For brownie points?
- dist-epoch 15d ago
  Selecting between alternatives is also a very valuable skill. Also known as "taste". You are a senior software architect, you "prompt" 10 junior architects to write a software architecture proposal and then pick one which you send the client. Would you say it's worthless, because the senior architect didn't care to write it? There are plenty of industries where "taste" is a real job. Or you think that for some reason prompting a LLM and forwarding it's output after vetting is different than prompting a human and forwarding the output after vetting.
  - unsungNovelty 15d ago
    > Would you say it's worthless, because the senior architect didn't care to write it? Lemme ask you a counter question, the senior architect writes the proposal and the junior writes it. Which one do you think client likes better? Moreover, Your focus is on the end-result. Sure, in corporate environment, most people don't care about what they do as long as the end results checks some boxes. That wasn't the discussion here. The discussion is about writing and reading in general. Whether it's worth my time or not if you don't mean (forget mean, don't even remember) what you wrote. Also, in your own example, the client don't care as well. As long the client's checks all the boxes his/her/their manager said should satisfy. Nobody really gives a damn about the quality. Also, are you saying you'll be fine paying for Financial Times, WSJ and NYTimes KNOWING all they do is shove the story through an LLM? Neither will there be a soul, nor will there be any material effect on people who reads it. > Or you think that for some reason prompting a LLM and forwarding it's output after vetting is different than prompting a human and forwarding the output after vetting. There is difference no? I forward the output to get good feedback and correction from someone BETTER. And there is a process involved in it which showcases the "TASTE" you mentioned from the person whom you are forwarding your output to be vetted and that person comes up to you with feedback. And guess what? You learn from the person's feedback. You don't go back again and again forever to learn the same thing. That's exactly what am trying to point out.
Applejinx 15d ago
OK, how about 'nothing is real, nobody will ever care again, let's all never listen to anybody else ever again'? That's more or less the same thing expressed more nihilistically. But nihilism is, like, just a word man (to 'The Dude' it up a bit). Perhaps we are either fiddling on the deck of the Titanic, or just staring at the waves? What do you think the results will be of the machines consuming only their own slop and Habsburging themselves intellectually, and then all the humans abandoning any attempt to either talk or listen? As a global civilization of humans? I'm not sure we've explored the likely consequences of 'if you can't spend them time to write it why should anyone read it'. Maybe it's gone too far already.
phrotoma 15d ago
Agreeing with a person is not the same thing as agreeing with a robot.
dofm 15d ago
There is critiquing an idea using pointed Socratic critique, and there’s coming across as a bit of a dick, Jim.
deleted 15d ago
[deleted]
deleted 14d ago
[deleted]
deleted 14d ago
[deleted]
andrewflnr 14d ago
Some things are worth repeating, so the community knows that many people share the belief. Often they're slogans, sometimes they're just plain good arguments.
copemaxxxing 14d ago
[dead]
63stack 14d ago
I may not be the one that came up with a thought originally, but I can echo it because I agree with it.
basilikum 14d ago
You are moving the goalpost. OC is not talking about thoughts having to be unique. You can very much read someone else's thoughts, examine them critically and come to the conclusion of agreeing with them. You might then write a comment like OC putting these thoughts into your own words – maybe abridging them, placing different emphasize according to what you find most important or even adding new ideas – and quote or paraphrase something you found very fitting. That is completely different from generating words that are not an expression of your thoughts or at the very best take some concise thoughts from the prompt and stretch them into a lengthy word soup. Of course there are people who just parrot other people's thoughts without understanding them. That's closer to using an LLM. But you can often see how well someone understands something and how much reasoning of their own they put into it through their writing. And for the writer writing is a very good way to reflect on their own thoughts and to get them into order. Proper writing is thinking.
bigmadshoe 13d ago
There's a big difference between reintroducing this unoriginal point in the context of this thread and presenting an entire piece of LLM writing as your own. That phrase from this comment isn't pretending to be an original piece of writing.

sm-silversight 15d ago

How do you know it's not his/her thought? Just because others have had it does not mean he/she did not put effort into considering it.

abc123abc123 15d ago
How do you know it is? Most likely we will never know.
nearbuy 14d ago
In this comment section alone, 5 people have used some variant of that aphorism, and it's used constantly on hn and other sites. They've heard it.
- Terr_ 14d ago
  How does that matter? Parent-poster asked about sincerity of thought, not originality. If the spouses-to-be at a marriage ceremony say "I do", would you leap up from the audience to denounce them as frauds because obviously they heard the vow-formula before a hundred times? Hopefully not, and not only for reasons of decorum. In contrast, most of the LLM slop I deal with from coworkers involve statements that--while less formulaic--are ones they can't even recall saying and are unwilling to defend when questioned.
  - nearbuy 14d ago
    JimDabell said they didn't come up with that thought themselves. They never implied the poster didn't mean it. sm-silversight responded, "How do you know it's not his/her thought?" You can reasonably interpret them as asking how we know they didn't come up with that thought independently. If we go with your interpretation instead, then sm-silversight simply misread the comment they replied to and their post doesn't follow. No one doubted OP felt sincere about not wanting to read AI.

unsungNovelty 15d ago

> despite having spent no time or effort in thinking it up yourself. I mean, how can you say that he didn't think it himself? I thought this same thing and realised apparently I'm not the first. You have no idea how many of my blog posts ideas have come in HN first before I could publish. People can have the same thoughts. And have em all the time as well. Psss.. See how @sm-silversight who commented on your post said the same thing I did? That's realtime example right there. Coming back to the topic at hand. I agree with the OP. If you don't care to write it, why should anyone read it? AI has good usecases. But am not sure writing is one. Writing is not just about the end result. It's also about the thought process. I learn about the topic more as I write. I correct my incorrect understandings as I write. When am pissed, my article has a different tone. Am rude, too direct. When am content/happy, different one. All of this is sterilised into something robotic where the author won't even remember what he/she wrote? What's the to like? For brownie points?

dist-epoch 15d ago
Selecting between alternatives is also a very valuable skill. Also known as "taste". You are a senior software architect, you "prompt" 10 junior architects to write a software architecture proposal and then pick one which you send the client. Would you say it's worthless, because the senior architect didn't care to write it? There are plenty of industries where "taste" is a real job. Or you think that for some reason prompting a LLM and forwarding it's output after vetting is different than prompting a human and forwarding the output after vetting.
- unsungNovelty 15d ago
  > Would you say it's worthless, because the senior architect didn't care to write it? Lemme ask you a counter question, the senior architect writes the proposal and the junior writes it. Which one do you think client likes better? Moreover, Your focus is on the end-result. Sure, in corporate environment, most people don't care about what they do as long as the end results checks some boxes. That wasn't the discussion here. The discussion is about writing and reading in general. Whether it's worth my time or not if you don't mean (forget mean, don't even remember) what you wrote. Also, in your own example, the client don't care as well. As long the client's checks all the boxes his/her/their manager said should satisfy. Nobody really gives a damn about the quality. Also, are you saying you'll be fine paying for Financial Times, WSJ and NYTimes KNOWING all they do is shove the story through an LLM? Neither will there be a soul, nor will there be any material effect on people who reads it. > Or you think that for some reason prompting a LLM and forwarding it's output after vetting is different than prompting a human and forwarding the output after vetting. There is difference no? I forward the output to get good feedback and correction from someone BETTER. And there is a process involved in it which showcases the "TASTE" you mentioned from the person whom you are forwarding your output to be vetted and that person comes up to you with feedback. And guess what? You learn from the person's feedback. You don't go back again and again forever to learn the same thing. That's exactly what am trying to point out.

Applejinx 15d ago

OK, how about 'nothing is real, nobody will ever care again, let's all never listen to anybody else ever again'? That's more or less the same thing expressed more nihilistically. But nihilism is, like, just a word man (to 'The Dude' it up a bit). Perhaps we are either fiddling on the deck of the Titanic, or just staring at the waves? What do you think the results will be of the machines consuming only their own slop and Habsburging themselves intellectually, and then all the humans abandoning any attempt to either talk or listen? As a global civilization of humans? I'm not sure we've explored the likely consequences of 'if you can't spend them time to write it why should anyone read it'. Maybe it's gone too far already.

phrotoma 15d ago

Agreeing with a person is not the same thing as agreeing with a robot.

dofm 15d ago

There is critiquing an idea using pointed Socratic critique, and there’s coming across as a bit of a dick, Jim.

deleted 15d ago

[deleted]

deleted 14d ago

[deleted]

deleted 14d ago

[deleted]

andrewflnr 14d ago

Some things are worth repeating, so the community knows that many people share the belief. Often they're slogans, sometimes they're just plain good arguments.

copemaxxxing 14d ago

[dead]

63stack 14d ago

I may not be the one that came up with a thought originally, but I can echo it because I agree with it.

basilikum 14d ago

You are moving the goalpost. OC is not talking about thoughts having to be unique. You can very much read someone else's thoughts, examine them critically and come to the conclusion of agreeing with them. You might then write a comment like OC putting these thoughts into your own words – maybe abridging them, placing different emphasize according to what you find most important or even adding new ideas – and quote or paraphrase something you found very fitting. That is completely different from generating words that are not an expression of your thoughts or at the very best take some concise thoughts from the prompt and stretch them into a lengthy word soup. Of course there are people who just parrot other people's thoughts without understanding them. That's closer to using an LLM. But you can often see how well someone understands something and how much reasoning of their own they put into it through their writing. And for the writer writing is a very good way to reflect on their own thoughts and to get them into order. Proper writing is thinking.

bigmadshoe 13d ago

There's a big difference between reintroducing this unoriginal point in the context of this thread and presenting an entire piece of LLM writing as your own. That phrase from this comment isn't pretending to be an original piece of writing.