With one colleague, I was leaving PR comments and he would just put my feedback into the AI and paste its response. So I decided to cut out the middleman and now I just @cursor and tell it to trim unnecessarily long comments.
Of all the things in this thread - this is the one that grinds my gears the most. Colleagues that believe it’s ok to reply with unedited garbage when you engage with them as a human.
I don’t think we need to write code anymore unless we want to - but we DO need to be humans, and respect the time of other people.
One coworker had their agent respond to me, with "from Claude : robot emoji:" at the end, that made me mad.
Then another coworker just pasted the Claude response with no signature and no comment and no context as if they had written it themself. That made me livid. I used to like that guy. No respect anymore.
It's really important to define what "people who can leverage AI" means. I've found that using AI judiciously with close human supervision provides an advantage, but using the latest models with the latest harnesses can look like it's giving you a huge advantage superficially while actually costing you more time in the long run.
That's hard to define, but I measure it as how quickly people reach for AI for complex, tedious tasks. Let's say you're doing market research for a car to buy. A person who doesn't use AI, might just ask ChatGPT, but many websites block searches like that now. Someone who uses CC or Codex could ask it and it will use curl to get the live data and make a HTML you can browse.
Another is someone making a workout plan or a meal plan. Coders will ask AI to make a plan and add it to their calendar using GOG Cli. It's a fundamental shift in thinking and that hasn't diffused to the mass public yet. But just like the internet, it will get to them eventually. In the mean time, those who leverage AI like that will have an advantage.
If you're already trending towards 10x developer status in a niche area of programming, sure, AI will secretly make you less productive (in that niche) while making you feel like you're going faster, for a little while.
For everyone and every other situation, hard disagree.
We're currently wasting a lot of time cleaning up slop created by overusing AI. The loop is: developer uses AI to create a huge amount of code very quickly. But the developer didn't understand the underlying system very well so the specs generated by the AI contain a lot of faulty assumptions and the code was then built on those assumptions. So you have features that probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, but because they do exist people have provided feedback on them, and the developer then uses the AI to implement that feedback, but still doesn't understand the system so much of the code for the revisions is still wrong. So that individual developer saw a huge productivity increase, in the sense that he generated a vast amount of code really quickly, but the team as a whole saw a productivity decrease.
Ironic plot twist, AI is just exposing your coworker's weakness. They could slow down and understand before blasting away at code, or explicitly hang back and generate tech demos/PoCs for architectural choices while building understanding, but they didn't. The only reason things were ok before was because they were handicapped to a speed slower than their ability to figure things out.
Is it a weakness of the individual or is it a systemic issue where management sees how fast a single task can be "completed" with AI so they set goals that can only be achieved if you offload everything to AI and then fall into the trap I described above.
If management isn't giving people enough time to verify work, that's on them. If management is giving people enough time, but saying "go fast" and people interpret that as "YOLO" that's on the employee.
There are so many other factors. Will people be pissed if they expected your output and got AI slop instead? Will you lose context on something that you really need to understand?
There are so many contradictions in this statement that either the person who wrote it is completely muddle-headed, or just a bad liar.
> Nothing about our core business has changed – it remains strong and consistent
a few paragraphs later
> But our transformation is going to take time
and the next paragraph
> At the same time, the market in which we operate has undergone profound change over the last 6 months. We need to adjust our cost structure
So is the business strong and consistent, or is it facing a rapidly-changing market, requiring that the business transform and adjust it's cost structure?
> To be clear about the impact of AI on today’s decision: we are not making the above changes because we believe AI replaces humans.
A few paragraphs later
> AI has fundamentally transformed the tech industry, though, including how we work, how we build products, how we communicate, and more. That does have an impact on how we operate and organize.
So do you think AI doesn't replace humans, or do you think that you'll need fewer humans because AI will be doing more of the work?
AI prompt: “Write a melodramatic layoff announcement that blames our problems on vague market/economic changes, suggests we need to transform, yet reassures investors that business fundamentals are strong.”
Nothing in there contradicts. A business that works well today may not work well tomorrow; it's management's job to change the business to better meet future conditions.
> or do you think that you'll need fewer humans because AI will be doing more of the work?
My bet is this one. To be fair, it isn't exactly an unpopular opinion. If I were starting a business today I'd plan to hire far fewer programmers than I would have just 2-3 years ago.
I think this is a category error. Homer is the iconic writer of the Ancient Greek language and culture, not the modern nation of Greece. Cervantes and Dante are the iconic writers in the Spanish and Italian languages, respectively, not the nations of Spain or Italy. Italy wouldn't even exist as a nation until 500 years after Dante.
The American equivalent of Homer, Dante, or Cervantes is Shakespeare.
Do you consider Frost inaccessible (or for that matter politically-charged)? I think every kid who grows up in New England reads him in elementary or middle school.
As long as the leadership of AI companies and the prominent AI researchers are talking about P(doom) and eliminating 50% of white collar jobs, there will be a backlash. As long as the leadership of corporate America is using AI usage in performance metrics and shoving AI into every single product regardless of whether it actually helps the product, there will be a backlash.
If you tell people that there's a technology that's going to change every aspect of their lives whether they like it or not (and has a non-zero chance of ending humanity entirely) and you want to throw all available resources into building this technology as fast as possible, do not be surprised if people start instinctively cringing every time your technology is mentioned.
If Altman, Musk, Zuckerberg, Amodei, or any of these other people had been half as smart as Steve Jobs, they would have adopted his worldview of computing as a "bicycle for the mind" that enhances rather than replaces humans.
There's a reason this article doesn't actually quote the text of this provision. The text itself is pretty boilerplate and has nothing to do with a "merger" of the US and Israeli militaries. It basically just tells the Secretary of Defense to appoint someone to coordinate research and development efforts in certain areas.
The idea that this bill would make the US and Israeli militaries more integrated than the US is with any other allies is just bullshit. We literally have a joint legal and command structure in place for the US to fight alongside NATO allies.
1. Israel is not an ally, Israel is not in NATO. Most US citizens do not support Israel and want to completely disentangle the US from Israel. Israel has attacked the US on many occasions going so far as to steal nuclear secrets (Jonathan Pollard).
2. The text makes it very clear that this is a merger. A sibling comment posted the exact copy, read it for yourself.
Where in the text do you see anything about a "merger"? Bilateral agreements to develop technology are common between countries. That is nothing resembling a merger. There is no discussion of joint command structure, joint budgeting, etc.
I speak as a US citizen, not as an Epstein blackmailed politician. Israel is our enemy. To requote the text:
> "... responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel, to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation, by-- (1) identifying jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies with operational utility for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record; (2) ensuring collaborative research initiatives involving government, private sector, and academic institutions in the United States and Israel, is done in a manner that protects sensitive technology and information and the national security interests of the United States and Israel;"
After reading through the link you provided, I think it's fair to call it a merger. This is from the opening of Section 219.
"... responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts between the
United States and Israel, to expand and accelerate bilateral defense
technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and
industrial cooperation, by--
(1) identifying jointly developed or Israeli-origin
technologies with operational utility for potential integration
into United States systems and programs of record;
(2) ensuring collaborative research initiatives involving
government, private sector, and academic institutions in the
United States and Israel, is done in a manner that protects
sensitive technology and information and the national security
interests of the United States and Israel;"
I don't think your counterarguments to the claims from the article are sincere.
The IDF/Hasbara has been active on HN for over a decade. Trying to write things off as conspiracy theories doesn't work when the site is under persistent social influence attack by a state actor.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
No, and if you ban me I'll make a new account on a fresh IP. I've seen IDF and Hasbara types posting literal copy-pasted verbatim-identical shill replies from multiple sockpuppet HN accounts, going all the way back to at least 2013. I'm not letting this go.
We banned that account a long time ago, but having taken a quick look I see no reason why you would call that a state propaganda account, other than (1) it expressed strong views that you strongly disagree with, and (2) that always makes a post more likely to seem fake, disingenuous, etc.
From my point of view, there's no evidence for this. Doesn't mean it wasn't true, of course, but in the absence of evidence I would go with the simpler explanation, which we know for a fact happens all the time: there are a lot of people who feel strongly about the topic and share the opinions this account was stating (just as there are on the opposing side).
I also don't think your theory is consistent with all the other posts that account made about everything from Photoshop to Javascript floats to package managers to whether rms is autistic, OpenBSD, and so on. Of course one can argue that this just proves how clever the state propagandists are, and how good at covering their tracks, but this line of reasoning ends up getting pretty absurd.
The fact is that HN has, and has had for years, very many commenters articulating these same opinions, sometimes within the site guidleines and sometimes not, and just the same is true of commenters articulating opposing positions. I don't see any difference between the comments people single out as examples of putative astroturfing and the others. Moreover there's nothing in the private data we have that would change this picture significantly. On the contrary, all the evidence points in the other direction: real users with strong feelings and therefore strong opinions.
This kind of thing is exactly why we have that guideline that asks users not to post accusations of astroturfing, foreign agenting and so on, but rather to contact us privately. We're not saying these things don't exist—but the odds that you (I don't mean you personally, of course, but everyone in this situation) are reading-in something that isn't there are orders of magnitude higher.
Dang, I would appreciate a reply, since you kind of skirted around my main point, which is that pro-Israel accounts have been posting copy-pasted verbatim-identical talking points going back all the way to at least 2014. Multiple accounts are literally posting the same word-for-word replies, but we're supposed to pretend that it's impossible for state actors to run influence operations on HN. How?
You've given me one link so far, and I gave you an in-depth reply. That's not "skirting around" and it's not telling you to "pretend" (as if such a thing would work). If you want me to engage with you seriously, you should omit such swipes. Writing in-depth responses to these questions is extremely time-consuming, and that means taking time away from the other 50,000 things we're overwhelmed with. I'm not going to keep doing this if you signal that you're unwilling to accept an answer you don't already agree with.
It is common on open internet forums (like HN) for people to become convinced that they're surrounded by enemies, and eventually that the mods are in cahoots with their enemies - because the alternative is to believe the simpler-but-more-painful theory that other legit users sincerely and strongly disagree with them. I've written about this many times (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098).
arrived at the same "Please, no simplified propaganda on HN" phrasing when they're coming from separate accounts within a short period of time. You've written a lot of text, but so far you still haven't answered how these two pro-Israel accounts ended up posting the exact same phrasing if they're not sockpuppets. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear.
This is so absurd that I can hardly spell out how absurd it is.
(1) You didn't link to those two posts, only one of them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48900528). Now you're complaining that I "still haven't answered" a question you didn't ask in the first place.
(2) Are you seriously asking me to tell you why 2 comments from 12 years ago happened to use the same turn of phrase? How should I know? Perhaps one saw the other say it and repeated it.
(3) The fact that you have to go back to 2014 to even pose your question is self-refuting. If this were a serious issue, you'd have no difficulty supplying recent examples.
I linked to a discussion thread linking to the other post. My point is that Hasbara has been active on HN for a long time and you're turning a blind eye to it. On other sites you will frequently see their sockpuppets posting the same verbatim-identical talking points, and they were sloppier about parroting the same lines on HN back then. They have a major presence here, and you need to stop pretending that they don't exist. Hasbara is a civilian-state fusion that enlists regular Israelis to shill for the government while making smalltalk on the side to appear organic.
> I linked to a discussion thread linking to the other post.
Where?
> and you're turning a blind eye to it
I spent over an hour taking seriously, looking into, and responding to the concern you raised, only to be accused of "turning a blind eye". That is what one gets for being an internet idiot, which was obviously my mistake here.
> On other sites you will frequently see
That is what people resort to when they have no evidence to point to on HN itself, which is already clear from your having to go back as far as 2014 to dig anything up. HN gets millions of posts a year—from randomness alone you shouldn't have to go far back to come up with something that looks plausible, however superficially.
I gave you that thread because it sticks out in my memory as the oldest, most egregious example of Hasbara on HN, and those posts are a testament to how deeply embedded they are on this site and how much they have expanded their operations here since then. Apparently, your former self agrees too, otherwise you wouldn't have banned one of those Hasbara accounts. I can provide you with lots of newer, softer examples, but my point is that Hasbara has been here parroting the same identical state-approved talking points for over a decade.
@dang I don't understand why we're talking about some random posts from 12 years ago.
I made a very simple point in the comments here - the headline and article make extraordinary, shocking claims that are not supported by the text of the legislation. For this I get accused of being a sock puppet or a paid foreign agent, despite the fact that I rarely comment on this topic, have a long comment history on a variety of topics, and didn't even say anything in support of Israel, I simply pointed out that the premise of the article is not just incorrect, but laughably so.
I would also like to point out that other comments in this thread include references to 1950s propaganda about Jews controlling the US government, references to how people who support this legislation are "Epstein-bought politicians" and other anti-semitic (not anti-Israel) trash. The far-right 1950s US politician quoted elsewhere in these comments was not anti-Israel - Israel barely existed at that time - he was just an old-fashioned Jew-baiter of a kind that was common in that era (he's mostly remembered for his McCarthyist campaigns against celebrities, but that's another story).
This article is just a new version of those ancient "a secret cabal of Jews control the world" conspiracy theories. The legislation is the equivalent of, say, an HN-funded company signing an MOU with a university to collaborate on R&D. Nobody would describe that as a "merger" between the company and the university. To go from "the DOD will appoint someone in it's vast bureaucracy to supervise research collaborations with Israel" to "the entire vast US and Israeli militaries will merge into one" is absurd and you only get there if you're primed to see the world through this conspiracy-tinted lens.
Do people unfairly conflate legitimate criticism of Israeli actions with anti-semitism? Sure, but then you look at a post like this and commenters are immediately jumping to how the US has been a "puppet state" of the Jews for "generations" (to quote another commenter), and then any pushback is immediately attacked as illegitimate, paid shilling.
Why would multiple accounts make the same very specific "Please no simplified propaganda on HN" quip if they weren't collaborating somehow? How could multiple accounts arrive at that same exact phrasing if they weren't controlled by the same person or group of people? I honestly can't think of another rational explanation.
The particularly egregious instance I'm thinking of from back in 2013 would link back to my doxxable info, so unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it. Disappointing, I know, but it's not worth leaking anything when dealing with these vicious amoral scumbags. I do suggest at least familiarizing yourself with the scope of Hasbara's efforts on social media sites like and HN and reddit, however, as that is public information.
Not really sure how you have a productive conversation when one party says that not only will they consider that anyone who disagrees with them is acting on bad faith, but they intend to disregard all rules and circumvent any bans.
Anyway it's pretty obvious that talking about this topic is completely pointless so I'm going to quit for now because I'm not actually a sock puppet or a paid shill or whatever, I'm just a human being who has a differing opinion.
The only reason Israeli government influence operations persist on social media is because they manipulate and exploit site moderation to their advantage.
You're telling me that the people that I hired and that I work with don't have any knowledge or opinions of any value, and 90% of the time I can just ask a machine instead of talking to them.
If that's the world we live in I fucking hate it. It's so solipsistic and dehumanizing.
reply