[_qswe]

I think the author has a fair take on the types of LLM output he has experience with, but may be overgeneralizing his conclusion. As shown by his example, he seems to be narrowly focusing on the use case of giving the AI some small snippet of text and asking it to stretch that into something less information-dense — like the stereotypical "write a response to this email that says X", and sending that output instead of just directly saying X.

I personally tend not to use AI this way. When it comes to writing, that's actually the exact inverse of how I most often use AI, which is to throw a ton of information at it in a large prompt, and/or use a preexisting chat with substantial relevant context, possibly have it perform some relevant searches and/or calculations, and then iterate on that over successive prompts before landing on a version that's close enough to what I want for me to touch up by hand. Of course the end result is clearly shaped by my original thoughts, with the writing being a mix of my own words and a reasonable approximation of what I might have written by hand anyway given more time allocated to the task, and not clearly identifiable as AI-assisted. When working with AI this way, asking to "read the prompt" instead of my final output is obviously a little ridiculous; you might as well also ask to read my browser history, some sort of transcript of my mental stream of consciousness, and whatever notes I might have scribbled down at any point.

[palata]

> the exact inverse of how I most often use AI, which is to throw a ton of information at it in a large prompt

It sounds to me that you don't make the effort to absorb the information. You cherry-pick stuff that pops in your head or that you find online, throw that into an LLM and let it convince you that it created something sound.

To me it confirms what the article says: it's not worth reading what you produce this way. I am not interested in that eloquent text that your LLM produced (and that you modify just enough to feel good saying it's your work); it won't bring me anything I couldn't get by quickly thinking about it or quickly making a web search. I don't need to talk to you, you are not interesting.

But if you spend the time to actually absorb that information, realise that you need to read even more, actually make your own opinion and get to a point where we could have an actual discussion about that topic, then I'm interested. An LLM will not get you there, and getting there is not done in 2 minutes. That's precisely why it is interesting.

[_qswe]

You're making a weirdly uncharitable assumption. I'm referring to information which I largely or entirely wrote myself, or which I otherwise have proprietary access to, not which I randomly cherry-picked from scattershot Google results.

Synthesizing large amounts of information into smaller more focused outputs is something LLMs happen to excel at. Doing the exact same work more slowly by hand just to prove a point to someone on HN isn't a productive way to deliver business value.

[palata]

> Doing the exact same work more slowly by hand just to prove a point to someone on HN isn't a productive way to deliver business value.

You prove my point again: it's not "just to prove a point". It's about internalising the information, improving your ability to synthesise and be critical.

Sure, if your only objective is to "deliver business value", maybe you make more money by being uninteresting with an LLM. My point is that if you get good at doing all that without an LLM, then you become a more interesting person. You will be able to have an actual discussion with a real human and be interesting.

[_qswe]

Understanding or being interesting has nothing to do with it. We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers. Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well.

[palata]

> We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers

We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. We don't use calculators for writing. We don't use API requests for writing (except when we make an LLM write for us).

> Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well.

I don't know what your job is. But if your job is to produce text that is meant to be read by humans, then it feels like not being able to synthesise your ideas yourself doesn't make you excellent at doing your job.

Again maybe it makes you productive. Many developers, for instance, get paid for writing bad code (either because those who pay don't care about quality or can't make a difference, or something else). Vibe coding obviously makes those developers more productive. But I don't believe it will make them learn how to produce good code. Good for them if they make money like this, of course.

[tpmoney]

> We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. We don't use calculators for writing. We don't use API requests for writing (except when we make an LLM write for us).

We do however use them to summarize and transform data all the time. Consider the ever present spreadsheet. Huge amounts of data are thrown into spreadsheets and formulas are applied to that data to present us with graphs and statistics. You could do all of that by hand, and you'd probably have a much better "internalization" about what the data is. But most of the time, hand crafting graphs from raw data and internalizing it isn't useful or necessary to accomplish what you actually want to accomplish with the data.

[_qswe]

We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding.

No one said anything about vibe coding. Using tools appropriately to accomplish tasks more quickly is just common sense. Deliberately choosing to pay 10x the cost for the same or equivalent output isn't a rational business decision, regardless of whether the task happens to be writing, long division, or anything else.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against doing things manually as a learning exercise or creative outlet. Sometimes the journey is the point; sometimes the destination is the point. Both are valid.

I don't know what your job is.

Here's one: prepping first drafts of legal docs with AI assistance before handing them off to lawyers for revision has objectively saved significant amounts of time and money. Without AI this would have been too time-consuming to be worthwhile, but with AI I've saved not only my own time but the costs of billable hours on phone calls to discuss requirements, lawyers writing first drafts on their own, and additional Q&A and revisions over email. Using AI makes it practical to skip the first two parts and cut down on the third significantly.

Here's another one: writing technical reports for my day job. Before they'd integrated AI into their platform, I would frequently get rave reviews for the quality and professionalism of my issue reports. After they added AI writing assistance, nothing changed other than my ability to generate a greater number of reports in the same number of billable hours. What you're suggesting effectively amounts to choosing to deliver less value out of ego. I still have to understand my own work product, or I wouldn't be able to produce it even with AI assistance. If someone thinks that somehow makes the product less "interesting", well then I guess it's a good thing my job isn't entertainment.

[johnnyanmac]

> deliver business value.

I think that mindet directly correlates with the kind of AI hat prompted this article: "It doesn't matter" in your eyes. You don't see the task as important, only the output and that it makes you money. the craft is less important than what you can sell it for.

[_qswe]

They're just different use cases. There's a difference between a learning exercise and a contractual engagement to deliver a product to a client.

[johnnyanmac]

Yes, a learning exercise has a goal to extend your own knowledge. Business is, especially as of late, figuring out how to get the cheapest but still acceptable work to the recipient for the highest value. I suppose it's on the recipient for not checking the quality of their commission.

[_qswe]

I'm not sure why you're randomly insinuating otherwise, but I've only received positive feedback on the quality of my work.

[satisfice]

If you present your AI-powered work to me, and I suspect you employed AI to do any of the heavy lifting, I will automatically discount any role you claim to have had in that work.

Fairly or unfairly, people (including you) will inexorably come to see anything done with AI as ONLY done with AI, and automatically assume that anyone could have done it.

In such a world, someone could write the next Harry Potter and it will be lost in a sea of one million mediocre works that roughly similar. Hidden in plain sight forever. There would no point in reading it, because it is probably the same slop I could get by writing a one paragraph prompt. It would be too expensive to discover otherwise.

[_qswe]

To be clear, I'm not a student, nor do I disagree with academic honor codes that forbid LLM assistance. For anything that I apply AI assistance to, the extent to which I could personally "claim credit" is essentially immaterial; my goal is to get a task done at the highest quality and lowest cost possible, not to cheat on my homework. AI performs busywork that would cost me time or cost money to delegate to another human, and that makes it valuable.

I'm expanding on the author's point that the hard part is the input, not the output. Sure someone else could produce the same output as an LLM given the same input and sufficient time, but they don't have the same input. The author is saying "well then just show me the input"; my counterpoint is that the input can often be vastly longer and less organized or cohesive than the output, and thus less useful to share.

[bsder]

> someone could write the next Harry Potter and it will be lost in a sea of one million mediocre works that roughly similar.

To be fair, the first Harry Potter is a kinda average British boarding school story. Rowling is barely an adequate writer (and it shows badly in some of the later books). There was a reason she got rejected by so many publishers.

However, Netscape was going nuts and the Internet was taking off. Anime was going nuts and produced some of the all time best anime. MTV animation went from Beavis and Butthead to Daria in this time frame. Authors were engaging with audiences on Usenet (see: Wheel of Time and Babylon 5). Fantasy had moved from counterculture for hardcore nerd boys to something that the bookish female nerds would engage with.

Harry Potter dropped onto that tinder and absolutely caught fire.

[johnnyanmac]

I don't really assossiate harry potter's rise with that of the internet. By the time it lit the internet ablaze was in the 2000's, after the first few movies aired.

It certainly wasn't the writing that elevated it. I think it was as simple as tapping into an audience who for once wasn't raised as some nuclear family. a Cinderella esque tale of being whisked away from abuse mixed with a hero's journey towards his inevitable clash with the very evil that set this in motion.

The movies definiely helped too. The first few were very well done with excellent child actors. Watching many other fantasy adaptations try to replicate that really shows just how the stars align into making HP a success.

[satisfice]

I was surprised to find how not true that is when I eventually read the books for myself, long after they became a phenomenon. The books are well-crafted mystery stories that don't cheat the reader. All the clues are there, more or less, for you to figure out what's happening, yet she still surprises.

The world-building is meh at best. The magic system is perfunctory. But the characters are strong and the plot is interesting from beginning to end.

[lmm]

> In such a world, someone could write the next Harry Potter and it will be lost in a sea of one million mediocre works that roughly similar. Hidden in plain sight forever. There would no point in reading it, because it is probably the same slop I could get by writing a one paragraph prompt. It would be too expensive to discover otherwise.

This has already been the case for decades. There are probably brilliant works sitting out there on AO3 or whatnot. But you'll never find them because it's not worth wading through the junk. AI merely accelerates what was already happening.

[johnnyanmac]

>AI merely accelerates what was already happening.

I think "merely" is underselling the magnitude of effect this can have. Asset stores overnight went form "okay I need to dig hard to find something good" to outright useless as it's flooded with unusable slop. Google somehow got worse overnight for technical searches that aren't heavily quieried.

I didn't really desire such accelerations for slop, thanks. At least I could feel good knowing human made slop was learned from sometimes.