Do you have any non-contrived example of writing that was done with zero thought?

You don't know that they are low effort PRs until you expend time and energy, while in the meantime more important PRs might be in the queue that can potentially never get seen if the submitter decides to keep that rate up for a week.

The project will die before you get to other's PRs decades later.

The answer might be to RR reviews from submitters and not treat PRs as first come first served.

That way other submitters don't have their PRs blocked.

>> Don't worry, no one does.

> …you don’t think in words?

"I don't, generally, think in words" is not the same as "I don't think in words".

Like I already said, if thought was exclusively in words for humans, humans wouldn't have the "It's on the tip of my tongue" problem. It's blindingly obvious that thought does not occur exclusively with words.

Don't worry, no one does.

That's why it is so common for people to forget a specific word they want to use ("it's on the tip of my tongue").

If we thought in words that will never happen.

If you run someone over on purpose you get convicted of murder. If You do it by driving recklessly you get convicted of culpable homicide.

The only time you get off with nothing is if it is determined to be an accident.

As they always say: ignorance of the law is no excuse. Running a dangerous machine prevents you from claiming you had no idea the machine was dangerous.

Poor example. You wrote it to make a point, after all.

Gcc makes maybe 1 mistake ever 2 billion emissions. LLMs make 1 mistake ever 3rd emission.

What use is that? I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know.

Who or what is the audience for that sort of long form writing? If it's a human, why would they read it? They'd just give it to an LLM and get the salient points back. If the audience is another LLM, why expand it?

The only use case is an audience of humans who still read and understand, and those people aren't going to be interested in a message when it is not apparent that the sender actually understands the message themselves.

I have not found this to be the case even with SOTA models as recently as last month.

It holds for a short while into the content but reverts very quickly to its default style.

The default style is so heavily embedded in the weights I don't think simply adding prompts will help.

I mean, there's a limit on the complexity of a phone workout app, but almost unbounded complexity in even simple business apps.

Right. Because the owners of capital will let you have access to the largest models, without which you can't compete with them.

I think that there is a high probability of increased inequality, just like the how the added productivity in the past led to large gains for the capital holders, and next to no gains for the other 90%.

The reason they could tell that a message was deleted is because the existence of a "message deleted" message is itself a message telling them they are be moderated. The lack of this message may make it impossible to determine if this is the first attempt at comms or the 1000th.

I feel that if you want humans to read your stuff, those humans insisting that you write your own stuff is not an unreasonable position to take.

I feel that if one doesn't want to send that message, they shouldn't be attempting to convince others that rejection of AI prose must stop.

A 5m search got me the following:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49410941

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49411042

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49059571

This thread, in particular, stands out - reader makes the claim that Pangram found that the US constitution was 100% AI generated, when others tried they found 0% (or close to it) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48378191

Apparently, even though they want to spew AI prose everywhere, they want it read by humans, not by other bots, so when a few holdout places are insisting that prose be human authored they fight very hard against the rule.

Why? Claude can just do it for you, can't it? If you're using Claude to do these things, why half-ass it?

What I would like to see is a chart graphing the model size against some objective measure of capabilities, specifically for coding.

It's easy to see gains when you're doubling the effort. What I want to know is if the extra effort is opening up more capabilities over time or fewer capabilities over time.

There's an infinity between someone who has to panel beat what they copied off SO and someone who just bangs their head repeatedly against an LLM.