I use AI all the time for coding, but a tool that non-deterministically reaches potentially a different output than I would have produced myself is not analogous to typewriters.

▲

qarl2 an hour ago | parent [-]

You yourself would be non-deterministic if we could rewind time. So what's the issue here?

Not to mention, LLMs can be made deterministic if that were actually valuable.

Seems like determinism is just the latest excuse to hate.

▲

some-guy 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

It’s not exactly determinism, it’s authenticity. If we rewind time, of course the words would be different. It’s not relevant to my argument.

There’s a reason why the top comments of HN blog posts whine about articles that are clearly written by AI. I use AI constantly as a coding agent, but I care deeply about the authenticity of the words I write intended for other human beings to be my own.

	▲	qarl2 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> It’s not exactly determinism, it’s authenticity. I hope you understand, by so glibly switching from "determinism" to "authenticity" you've just provided more evidence that this is just the latest excuse to hate. But that aside - what happens in a couple years, when LLMs inevitably improve, and their writing is objectively superior to human writing? And people who just want to read well-written material won't care about the authenticity? I suspect there will be another glib switch. Because the reality here is just that AI is hated. Full stop.