> I think it's quite natural to link AI summaries like that.
I think you misspelled "convenient". More than the small effort that it takes one to share generated text, one has to consider the effort of who knows how many humans that will use their time to read it.
If a LLM wrote something you don't know about, you're not qualified to judge how accurate it is, don't post it. If you do know the subject, you could summarize it more succinctly so you can save your readers many man hours.
If LLMs evolve to the point where they don't hallucinate, lie, or write verbosely, they will likely be more welcome.
I'm a bit confused about these replies. The user was talking about posting AI summaries in HN comments. I suggested that posting an URL may be better choice.
I thought you were saying it was easy to share the chat session, not a generic URL the LLM used as source. If the second was the case, please disregard my comment.
That's my general understanding too. More recently people have adopted it as a way to not look like Ai, I've had several cite that as their rationale. There has been a notable uptick since the Ai step function change at the end of last year, along with all the other patterns we see, such as the one that underlies this new HN rule.
I've done research using AI, it does work better than a search engine (when it doesn't hallucinate); but I find copy-pasting verbatim distasteful, and disrespectful of the time of others.
What I do is copy the URLs for reference, and summarize the issue myself in as few sentences as possible. Anyone who wants to learn more can follow the reference.
That’s fine, then! A summary handcrafted for HN is of course fine, though you might find more value in citing what you consider most distinctive about it as a higher priority than a summary if not different than its own opening paragraph / abstract / etc.
Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
It can catch things that I might miss or might be misinterpreted. I sometime miss simple things, like like repeated words, that an AI point out. Is a spell checker considered "AI"? Is Grammerly? Okay, maybe Grammerly from 5 years ago as opposed to today? If I'm typing on my phone and it pops up the next suggested word, is that AI edited?
And no, I don't have to reply to a post, but when I think it's a bad policy, should I just accept it without discussion? And who determines the "experts/insiders" and which voices should be allowed?
Yes, these are MY questions and feelings too. In the past, if I just HINTED at asking these kinds of questions, I was downvoted into oblivion (in other accounts. I have to say THAT specifically because some people here dive in to my account and get super anal about my age, my previous comments, my moniker, ad nauseum)
>Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
As Isaac Asimov pointed out[0]:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
This thread runs through many cultures and isn't just a problem on the Internet, although the Internet certainly has accelerated/worsened the problem. And it has created a distrust of experts which (as has been obvious for a long time) has made us, as a whole, dumber and less informed.
I recommend The Death of Expertise[1] by Tom Nichols for a sane and reasonable treatment of this issue. If books aren't your thing, Nichols did a book talk[2] which lays out the main points he makes in the book. During that talk, he also gives the best definition of disinformation I've heard yet.
Again, the question is who blesses the expert? There’s a difference in having a voice and your voice being taken seriously.
If someone posts a link on a a new laptop, who should respond? I am not an expert on the current laptop market, but I have options about it. Maybe my English is not the best so I run through an AI to clean it up of ambiguities or wrong wording. Maybe I say “I like to take my laptop from behind” when I meant “I lift my laptop from the back”. An AI could point out this type of error.
So far they have prevailed despite RADs, 4GLs, no-code solutions, etc. Software engineers have ended up using these new tools to still develop. You can already see developers embracing LLMs to create heaps of trash for fun while they learn to integrate them in their job.
It would take a huge leap forward, if not actual AGI, to fully replace Software Developers. If that's the case, they could replace any human job at any level, not just developers.
I’m less worried about them “fully” replacing developers than what partial replacement looks like for the 95%+ of us who aren’t set-for-life, special genius devs in big tech.
Software engineering as a profession isn’t going anywhere, but what makes AI different from previous fads is that engineers who fail to adapt and update their skills will definitely be replaced.
That's no different from previous developments. If you refuse to work with modern programming languages, or with the web, or with a task-tracker, you're narrowing your opportunities for employment considerably.
> You see it start to change with the telegraph on down to where we are today.
Telegrams were paid by the word, and were all uppercase by design, they're not an evolution of language. It took more effort to adapt your message to a telegram than to write a proper sentence.
Beat me to this joke by a few minutes. Today seems like non-capitalization is the fad, but there was a time when all caps was the fad, at least in Spanish. It was mistakenly believed that capitals didn't need accents in Spanish, so illiterate people wrote all caps to avoid them. All lowercase feels the same.
> _capitalization_ is one of those "arbitrary rules"
If you're going to qualify capitalization as an arbitrary rule, then it wouldn't matter if it's all lowercase or all uppercase. It's not a whim of scholars, it improves readability, it emphasizes, it carries meaning.
All uppercase looks loud today, but early computers were also all uppercase and it was normal. All lowercase looks bland and sloppy, only a few steps removed from "what u doing lol?" texting shorthand.
This is more about Apple predatory tactics within their walled garden than actual improvement of their services. Not paying Apple for additional storage means you can't even be sure your phone backup in iCloud is complete.
reply