My current bar is “if you know I’m expecting to hear from a person don’t paste unedited ChatGPT outputs and hit send.” Everybody wants to send out the efforts of their corner-cutting, but nobody wants to receive them.

Most people know when they are doing it. If you feel the need to obscure your LLM usage, it means you didn’t put enough of your own voice and work into the final draft and you need to do something about that.

▲

notatoad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’d go a step further and say there is never a good reason to share unedited ai output.

The closest acceptable thing to share is the full chat, including your prompts. If the output is useful enough to share, then the human thought process that led to the ai output is almost always more useful than the output itself.

▲

jimbokun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of time I will just say “Gemini/Claude is telling me…” just like I would for a Google search result. Sometimes helpful to use the common wisdom embedded in the LLMs as a starting point for the discussion.

	▲	somewhatgoated an hour ago \| parent [-]
		As soon as I read this phrase my eyes glaze over and I skip everything that comes after it. If I want the LLM answer I freaking ask it myself

▲

bandrami 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The asymmetry is that lots of people want to use LLMs to produce things, and nobody wants to consume the things LLMs produce.

The Nash equilibrium here is that the market has to find a way for the people producing things with LLMs to pay people to consume them, and the market always finds a way.

▲

2wdfsd 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not quite. Ultimately the lions-share of income of model producer's is coming from firms.

Firms are only going to pay out to model producers if they are getting more in excess of the cost of financing projects over time. If a firm does not see this happen, they reduce their spend on tokens. Simple.

Its a whole lot more nuanced than some shitty game theory.

	▲	somewhatgoated an hour ago \| parent [-]
		“Firms are only making perfectly rational decisions that result in meaningful real outcomes” - not my experience. Firms waste literally billions on some bullshit that gets them nothing.

▲

Forgeties79 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>the market always finds a way

That may be the case but every day LLM’s feel less like the next big thing and more like 3D printing. Here to stay, but not nearly as ubiquitous and earth shattering as people made it out to be.

If I had to guess right now, I would say LLM’s are more significant than 3D printers, but less significant than the Internet.

▲

bandrami an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I've thought the 3D-printing analogy is pretty apt for about a year now. It had a lot of promise at first but it never quite has the impact people thought it would. There are still 3D printers for sale, and people still prototype with them, but nobody's printing out a dustpan when they need one.

▲

trollbridge 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd say that's a pretty accurate analysis. Something that is easily generated by an LLM obviously has low value and there is no moat.

Agentic coding is a bit different, particularly if a great deal of effort and intelligence goes into it, but that's a quite different thing than just cranking out slop apps.

▲

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah there is no doubt that some companies are going to radically change their operations because of agentic coding in particular. But the revolution that is being promised, and the investment that has gone along with it, is going to smash against some pretty nasty shoals of reality sooner rather than later

	▲	bandrami an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Some are going to radically change their operations, but we have yet to actually see if the ROI on that comes through for them. It will be an interesting thing to watch.