8 ms·
Something that really frustrates me about interacting with (some) people who use AI a lot is that they will often tell me things that start “I asked ChatGPT and
by jacksnipe 1y ago
Something that really frustrates me about interacting with (some) people who use AI a lot is that they will often tell me things that start “I asked ChatGPT and it said…” stop it!!! If the chatbot taught you something and you understood it, explain it to me. If you didn’t understand or didn’t trust it, then keep it to yourself!
- x3n0ph3n3 1y agoThanks for this. It's a great response I intend to use going forward.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- esafak 1y agoI had to deal with someone who tried to check in hallucinated code with the defense "I checked it with chatGPT!" If you're just parroting what you read, what is it that you do here?!
- hashmush 1y agoAs much as I'm also annoyed by that phrase, is it really any different from: - I had to Google it... - According to a StackOverflow answer... - Person X told me about this nice trick... - etc. Stating your sources should surely not be a bad thing, no?
- nraynaud 1y agothe first 2 bullet points give you an array of answers/comments helping you cross check (also I'm a freak, and even on SO, I generally click on the posted documentation links).
- spiffyk 1y agoWell, it is not, but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT.
- gruez 1y ago>but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT. I don't think I've ever seen anyone lambasted for citing stackoverflow as a source. At best, they chastised for not reading the comments, but nowhere as much pushback as for LLMs.
- comex 1y agoFrom what I’ve seen, Stack Overflow answers are much more reliable than LLMs. Also, using Stack Overflow correctly requires more critical thinking. You have to determine whether any given question-and-answer is actually relevant to your problem, rather than just pasting in your code and seeing what the LLM says. Requiring more work is not inherently a good thing, but it does mean that if you’re citing Stack Overflow, you probably have a somewhat better understanding of whatever you’re citing it for than if you cited an LLM.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yoyohello13 1y agoSeriously. Being able to look up stuff using AI is not unique. I can do that too. This is kind of the same with any AI gen art. Like I can go generate a bunch of cool images with AI too, why should I give a shit about your random Midjourney output.
- h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y agoHow can you be so harsh on all the new kids with Senior Prompt Engineer in their job titles? They have to prove to someone that they're worth their money. /s
- alwa 1y agoI mean… I have a fancy phone camera in my pocket too, but there are photographers who, with the same model of fancy phone camera, do things that awe and move me. It took a solid hundred years to legitimate photography as an artistic medium, right? To the extent that the controversy still isn’t entirely dead? Any cool images I ask AI for are going to involve a lot less patience and refinement than some of these things the kids are using AI to turn out… For that matter, I’ve watched friends try to ask for factual information from LLMs and found myself screaming inwardly at how vague and counterproductive their style of questioning was. They can’t figure out why I get results I find useful while they get back a wall of hedging and waffling.
- namaria 1y ago> It took a solid hundred years to legitimate photography as an artistic medium, right? Not really. "In 1853 the Photographic Society, parent of the present Royal Photographic Society, was formed in London, and in the following year the Société Française de Photographie was founded in Paris." https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography/Photography-as-art https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography/Photograph...
- alwa 1y agoNot that photographic art wasn’t getting made, more that the doyens of the Finer Arts would tend to dismiss work in that medium as craft, trade, or low art—that they’d dismiss the act of photographic production as “mere capture” as opposed to creative interpretation, or situate the artistic work in the darkroom afterward where people used hands and brushes and manual aesthetic judgment. It’s been depressingly long since school, but am I wrong in vaguely remembering the controversy stretching through Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and well into the Warhol era? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/10/when-photography-became-art/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/10/when-photogra... And I guess legitimacy doesn’t fully depend on the whims of museums and collectors, but to hear Christie’s tell it, they didn’t start treating the medium as fine art until 1972–and then, almost more as antiquities than as works of art— https://www.christies.com/en/stories/how-photography-became-accepted-as-a-fine-art-with-3a5d8821742e44e19491e069c5bed3ab https://www.christies.com/en/stories/how-photography-became-... In much the same way as there are tons of Polaroids that are not art and a few that unambiguously are (e.g. [0]); there’s a lot of lazy AI imagery, but there also seem to be some unambiguously artful endeavors (e.g. [1]), no? [0] https://stephendaitergallery.com/exhibitions/dawoud-bey-polaroid-works/ https://stephendaitergallery.com/exhibitions/dawoud-bey-pola... [1] https://www.clairesilver.com/ https://www.clairesilver.com/
- evandrofisico 1y agoIt is supremely annoying when i ask in a group if someone has experience with a tool or system and some idiot copies my question into some LLM and paste the answer. I can use the LLM just like anyone, if i'm asking for EXPERIENCE it is because I want the opinion of a human who actually had to deal with stuff like corner cases.
- jsheard 1y agoIf it's not worth writing, it's not worth reading.
- pixl97 1y agoI mean, there is a lot of hand written crap to, so even that isn't a good rule.
- mcny 1y agoIt is a necessary but not sufficient condition, perhaps?
- colecut 1y agoThat rule does not imply the inverse
- pixl97 1y agoI mean we have automated systems that 'write' things like tornado warnings. Would you rather we have someone hand write that out? It seems the initial rule seems rather worthless.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- colecut 1y ago1. I think the warnings are generally "written" by humans. Maybe some variables filled in during the automation. 2. So a rule with occasional exceptions is worthless, ok
- cogman10 1y agoI recently had this happen from a senior engineer. What's really frustrating is I TOLD them the issues and how to fix it. Instead of listening to what I told them, they plugged it into GPT and responded with "Oh, interesting this is what GPT says" (Which, spoiler, was similar but lacking from what I'd said). Meaning, instead of listening to a real-life expert in the company telling them how to handle the problem they ignored my advice and instead dumped the garbage from GPT. I really fear that a number of engineers are going to us GPT to avoid thinking. They view it as a shortcut to problem solve and it isn't.
- delusional 1y agoThose people weren't engineers to start with.
- colechristensen 1y agoIf I had a dollar for every time I told someone how to fix something and they did something else... Let's just say not listening to someone and then complaining that doing something else didn't work isn't exactly new.
- colechristensen 1y ago>They view it as a shortcut to problem solve and it isn't Oh but it is, used wisely. One: it's a replacement for googling a problem and much faster. Instead of spending half an hour or half a day digging through bug reports, forum posts, and stack overflow for the solution to a problem. LLMs are a lot faster, occasionally correct, and very often at least rather close. Two: it's a replacement for learning how to do something I don't want to learn how to do. Case Study: I have to create a decent-enough looking static error page for a website. I could do an awful job with my existing knowledge, I could spend half a day relearning and tweaking CSS, elements, etc. etc. or I could ask an LLM to do it and then tweak the results. Five minutes for "good enough" and it really is. LLMs are not a replacement for real understanding, for digging into a codebase to really get to the core of a problem, or for becoming an expert in something, but in many cases I do not want to, and moreover it is a poor use of my time. Plenty of things are not my core competence or anywhere near the goals I'm trying to achieve. I just need a quick solution for a topic I'm not interested in.
- candiddevmike 1y agoThis happens to me all the time at work. People have turned into frontends for LLM, even when it's their job to know the answer to these types of questions. We're talking technical leads. Seems like if all you do is forward questions to LLMs, maybe you CAN be replaced by a LLM.
- mrkurt 1y agoWow that's a wildly cynical interpretation of what someone is saying. Maybe it's right, but I think it's equally likely that people are saying that to give you the right context. If they're saying it to you, why wouldn't you assume they understand and trust what they came up with? Do you need people to start with "I understand and believe and trust what I'm about to show you ..."?
- jacksnipe 1y agoI do not need people to lead on that. That’s precisely why leading on “I asked ChatGPT and it said…” makes me trust something less — the speaker is actively assigning responsibility for what’s to come to some other agent, because for one reason or another, they won’t take it on themselves.
- laweijfmvo 1y agothe problem is that when you ask a ChatBot something, it always gives you an answer...
- JohnFen 1y agoI agree wholeheartedly. "I asked X and it said..." is an appeal to authority and suspect on its face whether or not X is an LLM. But when it's an LLM, then it's even worse. Presumably, the reason for the appeal is because the person using it considers the LLM to be an authoritative or meaningful source. That makes me question the competence of the person saying it.
- Szpadel 1y agoI find that only acceptable (only little annoying) when this is some lead in case we're we have no idea what could be the issue, it might help to brainstorm and note that this is not verified information is important. most annoying is when people trust chatgpt more that experts they pay. we had case when our client asked us for some specific optimization, and we told him that it makes no sense, then he asked the other company that we cooperate with and got similar response, then he asked chatgpt and it told him it's great idea. And guess what, he bought $20k subscription to implement it.
- 38 1y ago> when this is some lead in case we're we have no idea what could be the issue English please
- hedora 1y agoI do this occasionally when it's time sensitive, and I cannot find a reasonable source to read. e.g., "ChatGPT says cut the blue wire, not the red one. I found the bomb schematics it claims say this, but they're paywalled." If that's all the available information and you're out of time, you may as well cut the blue wire. But, pretty much any other source is automatically more trustworthy.
- RadiozRadioz 1y agoThere was a brief period of time in the first couple weeks of ChatGPT existing where people did this all the time on Hacker News and were upvoted for it. I take pride in the fact that I thought it was cringeworthy from the start.
- Frost1x 1y agoI work in a corporate environment as I’m sure many others do. Many executives have it in their head that LLMs are this brand new efficiency gain they can pad profit margins with, so you should be using it for efficiency. There’s a lot of push for that, everywhere where I work. I see email blasts suggesting I should be using it, I get peers saying I should be using it, I get management suggesting I should use it to cut costs… and there is some truth there but as usual, it depends. I, like many others, can’t be asked to take on inefficiency in the name of efficiency ontop of currently most efficient ways to do my work. So I too say “ChatGPT said: …” because I dump lots of things into it now. Some things I can’t quickly verify, some things are off, and in general it can produce far more information than I have time to check. Saying “ChatGPT said…” is the current CYA caveat statement around the world of: use this thing but also take liability for it. No, if you practically mandate I use something, the liability falls on you or that thing. If it’s a quick verify I’ll integrate it into knowledge. A lot of things aren’t.
- rippleanxiously 1y agoIt just feels to me like a boss walking into a car mechanic's shop holding some random tool, walking up to a mechanic, and: "Hey, whatcha doin?" "Oh hi, yea, this car has a slight misfire on cyl 4, so I was just pulling one of the coilpacks to-" "Yea alright, that's great. So hey! You _really_ need to use this tool. Trust me, it's gonna make your life so much easier" "umm... that's a 3d printer. I don't really think-" "Trust me! It's gonna 10x your work!" ... I love the tech. It's the evangelists that don't seem to bother researching the tech beyond making an account and asking it to write a couple scripts that bug me. And then they proclaim it can replace a bunch of other stuff they don't/haven't ever bothered to research or understand.
- parliament32 1y ago> I see email blasts suggesting I should be using it, I get peers saying I should be using it, I get management suggesting I should use it to cut costs The ideal scenario: you write a few bulletpoints and ask Copilot to turn it into a long-form email to send out. Your receiving coworker then asks Copliot to distill it back into a few bullet points they can skim. You saved 5 minutes but one of your points was ignored entirely and 20% of your output is nonsensical. Your coworker saved 2 minutes but one of their bulletpoints was hallucinated and important context is missing from the others. Microsoft collects a fee from both of you and is the only winner here.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- godelski 1y ago> Something that really frustrates me about interacting with Something that frustrates me with LLMs is that they are optimized such that errors are as silent as possible. It is just bad design. You want errors to be as loud as possible. So they can be traced and resolved. On the other hand, LLMs optimize human preference (or some proxy of this). While humans prefer accuracy, it would be naive to ignore all the other things that optimize this objective. Specifically, humans prefer answers that they don't know are wrong over those that they do know are wrong. This doesn't make LLMs useless but certainly it should strongly inform how we use them. Frankly, you cannot trust outputs, so you have to verify. I think this is where there's a big divergence between LLM users (and non-users). Those that blindly trust and those that don't (extreme case is non-users). If you need to constantly verify AND recognize that verification is extra hard (because it is optimized to be invisible to you), it can create extra work, not less. It really is two camps and I think it says a lot: - "Blindly" trust - "Trust" but verify Wide range of opinions in these two camps, but I think it comes down to some threshold of default trust or default suspicion.
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoI had someone at work lead me down a wild goose chase because claude told them to do something which was outright wrong to solve some performance issues they were having in their app. I helped them do this migration and it turned put that claude’s suggestions made performance worse! I know for sure the time wasted on this task was not debited from the so called company productivity stats that come from AI usage.
- xnx 1y agoI can see why this would be frustrating, but it's probably a good thing to have people be curious and consult an expert system. Current systems are definitely flawed (incomplete, biased, or imagined information), but I'd pick the answers provided by Gemini over a random social post, blog page, or influencer every time.
- mwigdahl 1y agoI do this, but it’s because I am evangelizing proper use of the tool to developers who don’t always understand what it can and can’t do. Recently I used o3 to plan a refactoring related to upgrading the version of C++ we are using in our product. It pointed out that we could use a tool built in to VS 2022 to make a particular change automatically based on compilation output. I was not familiar with this tool and neither were the other developers on the team. I did confirm its accuracy myself, but also made sure to credit the model as the source of information about the tool.