From e125f5795e95bddfc108641507b79b0d8add45f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jack Jackson Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:09:53 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Remove unnecessary sulky reference --- blog/content/posts/weeknotes-the-first.md | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/blog/content/posts/weeknotes-the-first.md b/blog/content/posts/weeknotes-the-first.md index 3993d28..c54660e 100644 --- a/blog/content/posts/weeknotes-the-first.md +++ b/blog/content/posts/weeknotes-the-first.md @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ Don't get me wrong, the _idea_ of AI tools is beguiling. Anything that lowers th * plagiarism of existing work * further concentration of wealth and power in existing hands -And, frankly, it _doesn't_ seem to work as-claimed. Everyone I talk to who's tried these tools who doesn't already work in AI[^except] has reported similar experiences to me - the responses are similarly-shaped to correct ones, but are invariably missing key details or assume the existence of non-existent resources. So - if the output of these tools is prone to hallucination and needs to be vetted and monitored, how is it actually making anyone faster or (when viewed as a [centaur](https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/issue3-case/release/6)) more knowledgable? +And, frankly, it _doesn't_ seem to work as-claimed. Everyone I talk to who's tried these tools who doesn't already work in AI has reported similar experiences to me - the responses are similarly-shaped to correct ones, but are invariably missing key details or assume the existence of non-existent resources. So - if the output of these tools is prone to hallucination and needs to be vetted and monitored, how is it actually making anyone faster or (when viewed as a [centaur](https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/issue3-case/release/6)) more knowledgable? Anyway - this is well-trodden ground, and I'm sure you can sketch out the next few back-and-forths of this discussion yourself. Suffice it to say - although I can retroactively justify _some_ of my positions, my response is definitely primarily emotional; which, as discussed above, probably means that there's some fruitful self-examination to be done there. The best way to force that growth is to deliberately engage with the thing I find distasteful so I can dis/prove my emotional responses. @@ -94,4 +94,3 @@ I've been meaning to migrate away from Drone as my CI/CD provider for a while no [^untrustworthy]: I particularly appreciated the recognition that "_a lot of better informed people have sworn off LLMs entirely because they can’t see how anyone could benefit from a tool with so many flaws. The key skill in getting the most out of LLMs is learning to work with tech that is both inherently unreliable and incredibly powerful at the same time. This is a decidedly non-obvious skill to acquire!_" [^writing-to-think]: in fact that would entirely defeat the purpose of "_writing in order to figure out what you think_". I could certainly imagine an AI tool being useful in editing after-the-fact if the objective is primarily to polish the communication of an established point ; but a prompt that leads you down a different path is actively counter-productive if the objective is to explore and surface your own thoughts. [^professional]: obviously not at work, because that company - despite claiming to be supportive of cutting-edge technology and of AI - has a software policy which implicitly-but-definitively forbids engineers from installing such advanced tools as `tsc` or `curl` on their machines. Lawyers, man... -[^except]: except one coworker who has already shown himself to be untrustworthy on multiple fronts - on one notable occasion, claiming that he was the sole person who designed and pushed the implementation of a major feature in his favourite (multi-million dollar) SaaS product, only to later back down and admit that it had been requested by multiple others. Real "_my Uncle works at Nintendo_" vibes. But, I digress... \ No newline at end of file