Thesis: Interesting work is less amenable to the use of AI

A Danish audio newspaper host / podcaster had the exact apposite conclusion when he used ChatGPT to write the manuscript for one his episodes. He ended up spending as much time as he usually does because he had to fact check everything that the LLM came up with. Spoiler: It made up a lot of stuff despite it being very clear in the prompt, that it should not do so. To him, it was the most fun part, that is writing the manuscript, that the chatbot could help him with. His conclusion about artificial intelligence was this:

“We thought we were getting an accountant, but we got a poet.”

Frederik Kulager: Jeg fik ChatGPT til at skrive dette afsnit, og testede, om min chefredaktør ville opdage det. https://open.spotify.com/episode/22HBze1k55lFnnsLtRlEu1?si=h...

It's not the exact opposite*, the author said that if you're doing boilerplate _code_ it's probably fine.

The thing is that since it can't think, it's absolutely useless when it comes to things that hasn't been done before, because if you are creating something new, the software won't have had any chance to train on what you are doing.

So if you are in a situation in which it is a good idea to create a new DSL for your problem **, then the autocruise control magic won't work because it's a new language.

Now if you're just mashing out propaganda like some brainwashed soviet apparatchik propagandist, maybe it helps. So maybe people who writes predictable slop like this the guardian article (https://archive.is/6hrKo) would be really grateful that their computer has a cruise control for their political spam.

) if that's what you meant *) which you statistically speaking might not want to do, but this is about actually interesting work where it's more likely to happen*

> It made up a lot of stuff despite it being very clear in the prompt, that it should not do so.

LLMs are not sentient. They are designed to make stuff up based on probability.

As a writer I find his take appalling and incomprehensible. So, apparently not all writers agree that writing with AI is fun. To me, it’s a sickening violation of integrity.

Unfortunately, they could have been thinking, but the designation of the training/inference separation made them all specimens.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44488126

I love this turn of phrase. It quite nicely evokes the difference between how the reader thinks vs how the LLM does.

It also invites reflections on what “sentience” means. In my experience — make of it what you will — correct fact retrieval isn’t really necessary or sufficient for there to be a lived, first-person experience.

In a world where the AI can understand your function library near flawlessly and compose it in to all sorts of things, why would you put the effort into a DSL that humans will have to learn and the AI will trip over? This is a dead pattern.

It's all fine as long as you keep that fetish in your dungeon.

Yeah, if I were their reader, I'd most likely never read anything from them again, since nothing's stopping them from doing away with integrity altogether and just stitching together a bunch of scripts ('agents') into an LLM slop pipeline.

It's so weird how people use LLMs to automate the most important and rewarding parts of the creative process. I get that companies have no clue how to market the things, but it really shows a lack of imagination and self-awareness when a 'creative' repackages slop for their audience and calls it 'fun'.

Maybe reconsider assumptions? Maybe DSLs shouldn't be done anymore if they're not able to be utilized by AI agents easily

Why would sentience be required for logically sound reasoning (or the reverse, for that matter)?

This is completely ignoring the purpose of a DSL.

Dead pattern? Really?

It's a big leap from that hypothetical world back to ours.

I’m not going to make my code worse because your broken tool finds it easier.

Making stuff up is not actually an issue. What matters is how you present it. If I was less sure about this I would write: Making stuff up might not be an issue. It could be that how you present it is more important. Even less sure: Perhaps it would help if it didn't sound equally confident about everything?