Hacker News Reader

Comment by lurking_swe | Hacker News Reader

> But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is...

I think it can be OK if AI is used to polish up one’s message or to help structure it. Basically help with grammar, formatting, and wording.

But copy pasting an AIs response to a question? Not at all. People earn a reputation over time. TRUST is earned. An AI cannot earn trust. If you copy paste an AI response verbatim, i need to read everything in your message with a big grain of salt. Imagine doing this all the time as a reader? Exhausting and a waste of others time. If i want to read raw AI output i’ll ask the AI directly, thanks.

If you write something in your own words, or at least synthesize an AI response before sharing it with me, then i know i’m reading something that has at least passed the smell test.

It’s the difference between reviewing a pull request from an intern and a principal software engineer.

View on HN

I don't disagree at all. But it still remains that AI can very much be effectively used either to write first drafts OR refine your own first drafts.

Though, I think such a writing partner can only really be useful if you know how to write yourself, which also requires knowing how to think (because writing is really just thinking).

So, again, in the end all that really matters is whether you are effectively communicating what needs to be communicated, Ai-assisted or not. It's quite apparent to other thinking people when someone is not doing that, and that hurts their reputation, undermines trust and ultimately leads to losing your job, connections etc...

So, again, the policy really should just be something to the effect of "you're being paid to help us be effective and correct. If you can't do that, we don't need you. Take that into consideration with regards to the tools that you use.". That's obviously not an adequate policy - Ai could surely be helpful in polishing it! But it most definitely couldn't get to the root of the matter on its own.

> But it still remains that AI can very much be effectively used either to write first drafts OR refine your own first drafts.

There is a world of difference between this and copy-pasting LLM output into slack and email.

You can write the first draft with the LLM, or have the LLM help you do an analysis, look at how code works, and so on. But you need to check for the LLM to be correct and you need to be able to articulate what the LLM found in your own words. If you don't you have just offloaded all the work to someone else: someone else will have to check, verify, investigate what could very well be an hallucination (bad context, random bit flips, whatever the cause doesn't matter). Your effective contribution to the discussion will be negative.

To be very clear, I NEVER advocated for copy pasting thoughtless LLM output anywhere. Literally quite the opposite.

> I think it can be OK if AI is used to polish up one’s message

Asking it to identify problems such as spelling, grammar, or general clarity is fine.

If you tell it to "polish" many commercial LLMs will absolutely slopify your text with characteristic AI catch phrases and non-sequiturs. Beware.

Indeed. And if someone then shares that output verbatim, they'll undermine their own credibility. They can guide the AI to tidy it up, or do it themselves. The issue is not in using AI for writing, but in not using it consciously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com