3 ms·

It's not important at all and I wish people would stop mentioning AI. If you have criticisms on the docs or code, by all means make them but they shouldn't conc

It's not important at all and I wish people would stop mentioning AI. If you have criticisms on the docs or code, by all means make them but they shouldn't concern "AI vs human" considerations. Humans have written plenty of bad and documentations, too, it really doesn't matter who wrote what to what extent, what matters is whether it's the right quality.

steve1977 12d ago
Since we cannot address criticism on the docs or code to the author, we have to address our criticism to the middleman and what he did.
- jonathanstrange 12d ago
  That attitude unfortunately leads to people criticizing something without having enough evidence about it in the first place, like criticizing a book and later admitting you've only seen the cover and read the summary on the back. Criticisms should have substance.
  - steve1977 12d ago
    I can criticize the cover of a book though, without having read the book.
- kdjdkcneixj 12d ago
  People really need to learn that using AI to build something doesn’t automatically mean you just left every plan, spec and decision up to the AI. Can you do that? You absolutely can. Does everyone do that? No, absolutely not. It’s not a black and white issue. And, honestly, it’s quite narrow sighted and narrow minded to think so. The dev is not the middleman because Claude is not the author. Claude is the tool.
  - steve1977 12d ago
    This is unfortunately not the reality I'm seeing at my workplace. If this is still different for you, be happy and enjoy it while it lasts.
Sharlin 12d ago
No. It’s dishonest, not in any way different from plagiarizing another human’s text or code without proper attribution.
- jonathanstrange 12d ago
  I've written a lot in my life so far, including books and novels, and never used AI for it. I don't see the parallel. If you were right and it was the same as plagiarizing, then the use of AI should be prohibited entirely. However, to me it appears more akin to using tools like spell checkers, CAS pocket calculators, and Grammarly. It's another tool. I don't really get the fuzz people make about AI. I'm also fond of judging the content of texts regardless of the author. Has that idea come so much out of fashion?
  - Sharlin 12d ago
    Because plagiarization is not illegal. It’s just unethical and dishonest, and in certain contexts where your work is directly related to your status or compensation, it gets you in trouble. Copyright violation is a specific type of plagiarism that is illegal, but LLM output is not and, in current legal understanding, can not be copyrighted. Using the services of a human editor is not plagiarism, and mere editing is not considered coauthorship. Mentioning or thanking the editor is just a courtesy, or a contractual obligation at most. LLMs don’t need thanks so most people probably agree it’s fine not to mention it in a casual blog post if its part really is just editorial, brainstorming aid, or similar. (But context-specific terms and conditions apply, obviously.) What is absolutely not editorial use is making a hundred-word prompt and asking an LLM to expand it to a thousand-word blog post, or a thousand-line computer program, just like it wouldn’t be to ask or pay another human to do it for you. At most you’re then a coauthor of the LLM. This should be obvious, really, we have literally hundreds of years of history on the ethics and norms of assigning authorship on creative works. LLMs should change very little of that. And then there’s the quality issue. If there were a human author that ghost-wrote blog posts or program code for people, and their output would always have the same known quality and accuracy issues, I’d want to be warned rather than having to spend time on figuring it out every time. Reputation matters.
layer8 12d ago
Obviously LLM-generated text generally doesn’t have the right quality. People aren’t just annoyed by it being LLM-generated, they are annoyed because the writing is bad in a soulless way.
jibal 12d ago
The GP writes "me and many others think ...". I find that many of the complaints about the way LLMs write come from people who are illiterate and haven't been exposed to much literate writing before.

steve1977 12d ago

Since we cannot address criticism on the docs or code to the author, we have to address our criticism to the middleman and what he did.

jonathanstrange 12d ago
That attitude unfortunately leads to people criticizing something without having enough evidence about it in the first place, like criticizing a book and later admitting you've only seen the cover and read the summary on the back. Criticisms should have substance.
- steve1977 12d ago
  I can criticize the cover of a book though, without having read the book.
kdjdkcneixj 12d ago
People really need to learn that using AI to build something doesn’t automatically mean you just left every plan, spec and decision up to the AI. Can you do that? You absolutely can. Does everyone do that? No, absolutely not. It’s not a black and white issue. And, honestly, it’s quite narrow sighted and narrow minded to think so. The dev is not the middleman because Claude is not the author. Claude is the tool.
- steve1977 12d ago
  This is unfortunately not the reality I'm seeing at my workplace. If this is still different for you, be happy and enjoy it while it lasts.

Sharlin 12d ago

No. It’s dishonest, not in any way different from plagiarizing another human’s text or code without proper attribution.

jonathanstrange 12d ago
I've written a lot in my life so far, including books and novels, and never used AI for it. I don't see the parallel. If you were right and it was the same as plagiarizing, then the use of AI should be prohibited entirely. However, to me it appears more akin to using tools like spell checkers, CAS pocket calculators, and Grammarly. It's another tool. I don't really get the fuzz people make about AI. I'm also fond of judging the content of texts regardless of the author. Has that idea come so much out of fashion?
- Sharlin 12d ago
  Because plagiarization is not illegal. It’s just unethical and dishonest, and in certain contexts where your work is directly related to your status or compensation, it gets you in trouble. Copyright violation is a specific type of plagiarism that is illegal, but LLM output is not and, in current legal understanding, can not be copyrighted. Using the services of a human editor is not plagiarism, and mere editing is not considered coauthorship. Mentioning or thanking the editor is just a courtesy, or a contractual obligation at most. LLMs don’t need thanks so most people probably agree it’s fine not to mention it in a casual blog post if its part really is just editorial, brainstorming aid, or similar. (But context-specific terms and conditions apply, obviously.) What is absolutely not editorial use is making a hundred-word prompt and asking an LLM to expand it to a thousand-word blog post, or a thousand-line computer program, just like it wouldn’t be to ask or pay another human to do it for you. At most you’re then a coauthor of the LLM. This should be obvious, really, we have literally hundreds of years of history on the ethics and norms of assigning authorship on creative works. LLMs should change very little of that. And then there’s the quality issue. If there were a human author that ghost-wrote blog posts or program code for people, and their output would always have the same known quality and accuracy issues, I’d want to be warned rather than having to spend time on figuring it out every time. Reputation matters.

layer8 12d ago

Obviously LLM-generated text generally doesn’t have the right quality. People aren’t just annoyed by it being LLM-generated, they are annoyed because the writing is bad in a soulless way.

jibal 12d ago

The GP writes "me and many others think ...". I find that many of the complaints about the way LLMs write come from people who are illiterate and haven't been exposed to much literate writing before.