Credit where credit is due(thefloatingcontinent.com) |
Credit where credit is due(thefloatingcontinent.com) |
However, there is another problem: first-party content becomes unreliable. "I looked at X and when I did Y, I noticed that a dropped by b%". Vast amounts of such content can be generated that are now plausible. Humans were not so good at producing sufficiently convincing information here, but LLMs are, so my heuristics required to filter down input to manually review are no longer effective.
For my part, I try to write human-directed content when intended for humans, but I have a large machine-curated knowledge base of machine-written content that I consume through a machine intermediary. In some future, I'm sure that machines will perform better at communication, and so the writing will improve, but the provenance of first-party information cannot be solved now. I hope someone figures out a new mechanism to transmit facts to others interested in those.
[0]: https://marcusolang.substack.com/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-li...
I use LLMs every day at work. At the same time, I've never had an LLM appear as a "co-author", not because I'm making any effort to hide my LLM use, but because I've never been comfortable letting an LLM commit code. I use staging changes, hunk by hunk (or sometimes even line-by-line), as my review process. I don't want LLMs performing any git operations that add or push commits. I imagine I'm not the only one.
PS: If you want some bumpers to help avoid having your LLMs commit code, configuring Git for commit signing and blocking access to your signing key, agent socket, write access to your local Git config, etc., is pretty effective in my experience.
Why not? It seems rather odd to let it generate code but draw the line at git commands. Maybe a quick reminder that git operations have detailed history and are entirely reversible is in order.
Do you even LLM at that point?
I usually follow this procedure for formal emails. I write an initial draft and ask an LLM for a review. I iterate several times as I frequently feel that the LLM has changed a subtle meaning or makes a spurious argument that isn't in line with what I want to communicate.
If I could afford a full-time copy editor, I’d use one for the same reason. I am just trying to convey my meaning accurately and I believe that I get more precise results with an LLM helper.
Personally, I use LLMs for writing assistance as well, but I never ask it to generate text. I only ask it to:
1. Do basic copy editing. I give it a version of my document with prefixed line numbers, and ask it to find any typos, grammatical errors, or "hard to parse" sentences, and then generate a table of lines with issues. I make all of the fixes myself.
2. Do style and sentiment analysis. I previously worked as a tech writer (design docs, test reports, policies, etc...), so my natural style has become incredibly dry. Too dry for what I try to write these days. So I ask the LLMs for feedback on readability, voice, descriptiveness, emotion, etc... Yes, I know they're not actually "performing" reviews, but there must be enough literary and language analysis embedded within the models that they can take my text and return an appropriate response. They provide basically the same feedback that I've received from actual human readers (mostly that my writing is too dry...), but they're obviously a lot faster. I specifically ask it not to provide suggestions for changes to the actual text.
And they have the audacity to claim that the public will defund them if they don't use new tech. No, the public will defund you if you continue cheating like a 10 year old and you are evidently superfluous.
Just say no!
So what are we to do? Follow our duty to the community and the public, which is to produce as many results as possible? Or to follow our duty to ourselves and enjoy and understand what we are doing? To someone like me those things seem to be incorrigably opposed to each other now. At this pint the only option is to quit and find a new domain where human input in problem solving is still necessary.
In other words, it is a made-up argument. I think some mathematicians are either addicted (Feynman disease) or hope to make a breakthrough and somehow get credit. So they use "the public" to justify their habit.
The real public that is not on these forums wants academic freedom and independence from corporations. Both will suffer if you are entering soulless production pipelines.
No, I don't think calculators were associated with cheating. More with a skill atrophy.
Stockfish on the other hand is of course associated with cheating because it does all the work, unlike calculators.
Clearly not written by LLM. (NB: emphasis mine)
I undersign everything under my imprimatur; LLM, contract programmer, intern, whatever. If it has my chop; it has my support and accountability.
The "A" word (Accountability) has been getting deprecated far longer than LLMs have been around. It seems that no one wants to stand behind their work, anymore; regardless of how that work was done.
I had the advantage of spending almost 27 years, at a company that really made sure that I was Accountable. I ran a team, but it was my butt on the line.
People no longer understand Accountability.
If I sign off on something; no matter how it was made, it's my ass on the line. If I trust a shyster, and sign off on junk, then I walk the plank, not the shyster.
Legal people have known this for hundreds of years, but tech people seem to have forgotten it.
TL;DR: the process matters less than the result (although good results come from good processes). If someone is known for reliably producing good results, then their personal brand becomes a valuable currency. Classic stuff.
The tech industry has become so tied up with producing junk, that it has atrophied its sense of integrity.
edit: you're making literally the same argument that Provost Santiago Schnell is quoted as making in the article, and the entire article is dedicated to dismantling it. Please have a read.
Stop crying and start producing. The time to talk was five years ago. Everyone is way, way too tardy to the party.
It’s the same with developers: oh, but everything will collapse and nothing will work right without us manually signing off on this divinely ordained logic. Well, guess what? Nothing happened and things actually improved. Take a good hard look at software dev over the last ten years and tell me it was fine.
I am not at all convinced the current gen professionals are getting us to where we need to go.
A fish rots from the head. The increase in recording and reporting has shown us the people at the top are rarely held accountable and make billions doing so. Why follow the rules if it's going to financially harm you. It's every industry.
[EDIT:] I did read it (it's fairly...prolix).
It appears that you might benefit from giving the ol' Ts and Cs of this site a quick shufti. I'm pretty sure that I remember them mentioning "did you read the article" as a Bozo no-no.
I specifically mentioned that I use LLMs in my work (which was what he was writing about, anyway), and, as you would expect, it got a few moldy tomatoes thrown my way.