> Then you aren't going to get to why people are using these tools...

I couldn't disagree more!

If you haven't already, you should watch this topical presentation from Greg K-H that was posted to HN like a week ago. [0] It's about an hour long, but you can probably watch most of it at 120->150% speed.

Notice how his praise for the tools differs from so much of the expressed positive sentiment for said tools here on HN. The "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things in a way that smells very much like astroturfing. The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions and tend to know better than to burn a ton of time squabbling with Internet Randos in a place like this... they have much better things to do with their lives.

[0] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q>

▲ palmotea 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things in a way that smells very much like astroturfing. The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions

I think that's a good observation, but I wouldn't say those people are actually astroturfing (noting you only said they smell like that).

But that "low-horsepower" vs "high-horsepower" distinction probably has a big bearing on people's attitudes towards LLMs. "Low-horsepower" people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting. It's often been remarked that LLMs feel awesome for topics you know nothing about. It's kinda like Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect for people who were never knowledgeable about any topic.

[1] "The phenomenon of a person trusting newspapers for topics which that person is not knowledgeable about, despite recognizing the newspaper as being extremely inaccurate on certain topics which that person is knowledgeable about." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect#Engl...)

▲ orangedog an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

People are writing entire apps in days. You're just jaded if that isn't impressive to you.

▲ palmotea 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

No, clearly I did not.

FYI, it's tedious and annoying for me to respond to someone who consistently misunderstands my posts. And I'm seeing a pattern in your misunderstandings. They send a message that undermines the points you're trying to make.

▲

orangedog 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

> people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting

This is why people who praise these models do? You're saying they aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences. Once again, not giving any positive reason as to why people could feel the way they do about these models. The pattern is you are engaging in the binary thinking you are complaining about.

Your sentiment is pretty clear.

▲

palmotea 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

> This is why people who praise these models do? You're saying they aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences. Once again, not giving any positive reason as to why people could feel the way they do about these models. The pattern is you are engaging in the binary thinking you are complaining about.

> Your sentiment is pretty clear.

See, this one of the frustrating things about your responses: I make some statement about some subset, and you generalize it to the universe (of AI fans) and object. The thing you're objecting to is your own misunderstanding.

	▲	orangedog 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, yeah, when you are asked why people talk about these models on HN and your answers are: myopia, funded support, taking things personally, and pedantry and then you double down on it suggesting that another reason is these people aren't capable of evaluating what they are seeing, then you are only painting those people with a negative brush. Do yo believe there are positive reasons people are adopting these models? Because there is nothing in your responses that suggest you do. I, as somebody who rarely uses these models but understands why people might, don't see any attempt at being unbiased.

▲ simoncion an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope.

You:

  You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

Me:

  If you haven't already, you should watch this topical presentation from Greg K-H that was posted to HN like a week ago.  ... Notice how his praise for the tools differs from so much of the expressed positive sentiment for said tools here on HN. ... The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions ...

▲

orangedog an hour ago | parent [-]

Thanks but I'm not going to watch it.

> people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting

Yes, this is the exact sentiment expressed. That the praise you see is because of these people with low-horsepower who aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences.

▲

simoncion an hour ago | parent [-]

> Thanks but I'm not going to watch it.

You really should! It's positive sentiment about LLM-based tools that comes from a "high-horsepower" individual. Given your commentary here, it really seems like you've not encountered much of that sort of thing, so it'd really do you some good to load it into to your databanks for use in future discussions.

	▲	orangedog an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I've encountered plenty of it on HN and elsewhere, I just don't share your view of the space.

▲ simoncion an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think that's a good observation, but I wouldn't say those people are actually astroturfing (noting you only said they smell like that).

I agree with everything you've said here [0] as well as this bit I'm quoting specifically. I would strongly disagree with any claim that positive reports from "low-horsepower" people are likely to be astroturf. I'm just noting that a lot of astroturf reads like the way the "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things.

[0] ...at least with whatever the comment said when I wrote this one ;)...

	▲	palmotea 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I agree with everything you've said here [0] as well as this bit I'm quoting specifically. I would strongly disagree with any claim that positive reports from "low-horsepower" people are likely to be astroturf. I think we're in agreement. > I'm just noting that a lot of astroturf reads like the way the "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things. The "why" behind that would be interesting to know. It could just be that we assume astroturf would be low-effort, and that praise is low-effort (even if that's the most effort the "low-horsepower" person can muster), so they read the same.

▲ orangedog 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't observe the same things on HN that you do. I see a variety of sentiment - positive, negative, low-effort and high-effort.

	▲	simoncion 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I see a variety of sentiment - positive, negative, low-effort and high-effort. Me too!