i’m still not entirely sold on them but since i’m currently using one that the company subscribes to i can give a quick opinion:
i had an idea for a code snippet that could save be some headache (a mock for primitives in lua, to be specific) but i foresaw some issues with commutativity (aka how to make sure that a + b == b + a). so i asked about this, and the llm created some boilerplate to test this code. i’ve been chatting with it for about half an hour and testing the code it produces, and had it expand the idea to all possible metamethods available on primitive types, together with about 50 test cases with descriptive assertions. i’ve now run into an issue where the __eq metamethod isn’t firing correctly when one of the operands is a primitive rather than a mock, and after having the llm link me to the relevant part of the docs, that seems to be a feature of the language rather than a bug.
so in 30 minutes i’ve gone from a loose idea to a well-documented proof-of-concept to a roadblock that can’t really be overcome. complete exploration and feasibility study, fully tested, in less than an hour.
Writing customer/company-wide emails is a good example. “Make this sound better: we’re aware of the outage at Site A, we are working as quick as possible to get things back online”
Dumbing down technical information “word this so a non-technical person can understand: our DHCP scope filled up and there were no more addresses available for Site A, which caused the temporary outage for some users”
Another is feeding it an article and asking for a summary, https://hackingne.ws/ does that for its Bsky posts.
Coding is another good example, “write me a Python script that moves all files in /mydir to /newdir”
Asking for it to summarize a theory or protocol, “explain to me why RIP was replaced with RIPv2, and what problems people have had since with RIPv2”
My experience has been very different, I do have to sometimes add to what it summarized though. The Bsky account mentioned is a good example, most of the posts are very well summarized, but every now and then there will be one that isn’t as accurate.
Make this sound better: we’re aware of the outage at Site A, we are working as quick as possible to get things back online
How does this work in practice? I suspect you’re just going to get an email that takes longer for everyone to read, and doesn’t give any more information (or worse, gives incorrect information). Your prompt seems like what you should be sending in the email.
If the model (or context?) was good enough to actually add useful, accurate information, then maybe that would be different.
I think we’ll get to the point really quickly where a nice concise message like in your prompt will be appreciated more than the bloated, normalised version, which people will find insulting.
Yeah, normally my “Make this sound better” or “summarize this for me” is a longer wall of text that I want to simplify, I was trying to keep my examples short. Talking to non-technical people about a technical issue is not the easiest for me, AI has helped me dumb it down when sending an email, and helps correct my shitty grammar at times.
As for accuracy, you review what it gives you, you don’t just copy and send it without review. Also you will have to tweak some pieces that it gives out where it doesn’t make the most sense, such as if it uses wording you wouldn’t typically use. It is fairly accurate though in my use-cases.
Hallucinations are a thing, so validating what it spits out is definitely needed.
Another example: if you feel your email is too stern or gives the wrong tone, I’ve used it for that as well. “Make this sound more relaxed: well maybe if you didn’t turn off the fucking server we wouldn’t of had this outage!” (Just a silly example)
As for accuracy, you review what it gives you, you don’t just copy and send it without review.
Yeah, I don’t get why so many people seem to not get that.
It’s like people who were against Intellisense in IDEs because “What if it suggests the wrong function?”…you still need to know what the functions do. If you find something you’re unfamiliar with, you check the documentation. You don’t just blindly accept it as truth.
Just because it can’t replace a person’s job doesn’t mean it’s worthless as a tool.
Yeah, I don’t get why so many people seem to not get that.
The disconnect is that those people use their tools differently, they want to rely on the output, not use it as a starting point.
I’m one of those people, reviewing AI slop is much harder for me than just summarizing it myself.
I find function name suggestions useful cause it’s a lookup tool, it’s not the same as a summary tool that doesn’t help me find a needle in a haystack, it just finds me a needle when I have access to many needles already, I want the good/best needle, and it can’t do that.
The issue is that AI is being invested in as if it can replace jobs. That’s not an issue for anyone who wants to use it as a spellchecker, but it is an issue for the economy, for society, and for the planet, because billions of dollars of computer hardware are being built and run on the assumption that trillions of dollars of payoff will be generated.
And correcting someone’s tone in an email is not, and will never be, a trillion dollar industry.
I think these are actually valid examples, albeit ones that come with a really big caveat; you’re using AI in place of a skill that you really should be learning for yourself. As an autistic IT person, I get the struggle of communicating with non-technical and neurotypical people, especially clients who you have to be extra careful with. But the reality is, you can’t always do all your communication by email. If you always rely on the AI to correct your tone or simplify your language, you’re choosing not to build an essential skill that is every bit as important to doing your job well as it is to know how to correctly configure an ACL on a Cisco managed switch.
That said, I can also see how relying on the AI at first can be a helpful learning tool as you build those skills. There’s certainly an argument that by using tools, but paying attention to the output of those tools, you build those skills for yourself. Learning by example works. I think used in that way, there’s potentially real value there.
Which is kind of the broader story with Gen AI overall. It’s not that it can never be useful; it’s that, at best, it can only ever aspire to “useful.” No one, yet, has demonstrated any ability to make AI “essential” and the idea that we should be investing hundreds of billions of dollars into a technology that is, on its best days, mildly useful, is sheer fucking lunacy.
If you always rely on the AI to correct your tone or simplify your language, you’re choosing not to build an essential skill that is every bit as important to doing your job well as it is to know how to correctly configure an ACL on a Cisco managed switch.
This is such a good example of how it AI/LLMs/whatever are being used as a crutch that is far more impactful than using a spellchecker. A spell checker catches typos or helps with unfamiliar words, but doesn’t replace the underlying skill of communicating to your audience.
It works well. For example, we had a work exercise where we had to write a press release based on an example, then write a Shark Tank pitch to promote the product we came up with in the release.
I gave AI the link to the example and a brief description of our product, and it spit out an almost perfect press release. I only had to tweak a few words because there were specific requirements I didn’t feed the AI.
Then I told it to take the press release and write the pitch based on it.
Again, very nearly perfect with only having to change the wording in one spot.
The dumbed down text is basically as long as the prompt. Plus you have to double check it to make sure it didn’t have outrage instead of outage just like if you wrote it yourself.
How do you know the answer on why RIP was replaced with RIPv2 is accurate and not just a load of bullshit like putting glue on pizza?
Yes, I’m saving time. As I mentioned in my other comment:
Yeah, normally my “Make this sound better” or “summarize this for me” is a longer wall of text that I want to simplify, I was trying to keep my examples short.
And
and helps correct my shitty grammar at times.
And
Hallucinations are a thing, so validating what it spits out is definitely needed.
Most of what I’m asking it are things I have a general idea of, and AI has the capability of making short explanations of complex things. So typically it’s easy to spot a hallucination, but the pieces that I don’t already know are easy to Google to verify.
Basically I can get a shorter response to get the same outcome, and validate those small pieces which saves a lot of time (I no longer have to read a 100 page white paper, instead a few paragraphs and then verify small bits)
If the amount of time it takes to create the prompt is the same as it would have taken to write the dumbed down text, then the only time you saved was not learning how to write dumbed down text. Plus you need to know what dumbed down text should look like to know if the output is dumbed down but still accurate.
I mean, I would argue that the answer in the OP is a good one. No human asking that question honestly wants to know the sum total of Rs in the word, they either want to know how many in “berry” or they’re trying to trip up the model.
Here’s a bit of code that’s supposed to do stuff. I got this error message. Any ideas what could cause this error and how to fix it? Also, add this new feature to the code.
Works reasonably well as long as you have some idea how to write the code yourself. GPT can do it in a few seconds, debugging it would take like 5-10 minutes, but that’s still faster than my best. Besides, GPT is also fairly fluent in many functions I have never used before. My approach would be clunky and convoluted, while the code generated by GPT is a lot shorter.
If you’re well familiar with the code you’ve working on, GPT code will be convoluted by comparison. If so, you can ask GPT for the rough alpha version, and you can do the debugging and refining in a few minutes.
It can do that just fine, because it has seen enough examples of working code. It can’t directly count correctly, sure, but it can write “i++;”, incrementing a variable by one in a loop and returning the result. The computer running the generated program is going to be doing the counting.
One thing which I find useful is to be able to turn installation/setup instructions into ansible roles and tasks. If you’re unfamiliar, ansible is a tool for automated configuration for large scale server infrastructures.
In my case I only manage two servers but it is useful to parse instructions and convert them to ansible, helping me learn and understand ansible at the same time.
Results are actually quite good even for smaller 14B self-hosted models like the distilled versions of DeepSeek, though I’m sure there are other usable models too.
To assist you in programming (both to execute and learn) I find it helpful too.
I would not rely on it for factual information, but usually it does a decent job at pointing in the right direction. Another use i have is helpint with spell-checking in a foreign language.
Ask it for a second opinion on medical conditions.
Sounds insane but they are leaps and bounds better than blindly Googling and self prescribe every condition there is under the sun when the symptoms only vaguely match.
Once the LLM helps you narrow in on a couple of possible conditions based on the symptoms, then you can dig deeper into those specific ones, learn more about them, and have a slightly more informed conversation with your medical practitioner.
They’re not a replacement for your actual doctor, but they can help you learn and have better discussions with your actual doctor.
We didn’t stop trying to make faster, safer and more fuel efficient cars after Model T, even though it can get us from place A to place B just fine. We didn’t stop pushing for digital access to published content, even though we have physical libraries. Just because something satisfies a use case doesn’t mean we should stop advancing technology.
We also didn’t make the model T suggest replacing the engine when the oil light comes on. Cars, as it happens, aren’t that great at self diagnosis, despite that technology being far simpler and further along than generative models are. I don’t trust the model to tell me what temperature to bake a cake at, I’m sure at hell not going to trust it with medical information. Googling symptoms was risky at best before. It’s a horror show now.
Give me an example of how you use it.
i’m still not entirely sold on them but since i’m currently using one that the company subscribes to i can give a quick opinion:
i had an idea for a code snippet that could save be some headache (a mock for primitives in lua, to be specific) but i foresaw some issues with commutativity (aka how to make sure that
a + b == b + a). so i asked about this, and the llm created some boilerplate to test this code. i’ve been chatting with it for about half an hour and testing the code it produces, and had it expand the idea to all possible metamethods available on primitive types, together with about 50 test cases with descriptive assertions. i’ve now run into an issue where the__eqmetamethod isn’t firing correctly when one of the operands is a primitive rather than a mock, and after having the llm link me to the relevant part of the docs, that seems to be a feature of the language rather than a bug.so in 30 minutes i’ve gone from a loose idea to a well-documented proof-of-concept to a roadblock that can’t really be overcome. complete exploration and feasibility study, fully tested, in less than an hour.
Writing customer/company-wide emails is a good example. “Make this sound better: we’re aware of the outage at Site A, we are working as quick as possible to get things back online”
Dumbing down technical information “word this so a non-technical person can understand: our DHCP scope filled up and there were no more addresses available for Site A, which caused the temporary outage for some users”
Another is feeding it an article and asking for a summary, https://hackingne.ws/ does that for its Bsky posts.
Coding is another good example, “write me a Python script that moves all files in /mydir to /newdir”
Asking for it to summarize a theory or protocol, “explain to me why RIP was replaced with RIPv2, and what problems people have had since with RIPv2”
it’s not good for summaries. often gets important bits wrong, like embedded instructions that can’t be summarized.
My experience has been very different, I do have to sometimes add to what it summarized though. The Bsky account mentioned is a good example, most of the posts are very well summarized, but every now and then there will be one that isn’t as accurate.
How does this work in practice? I suspect you’re just going to get an email that takes longer for everyone to read, and doesn’t give any more information (or worse, gives incorrect information). Your prompt seems like what you should be sending in the email.
If the model (or context?) was good enough to actually add useful, accurate information, then maybe that would be different.
I think we’ll get to the point really quickly where a nice concise message like in your prompt will be appreciated more than the bloated, normalised version, which people will find insulting.
Yeah, normally my “Make this sound better” or “summarize this for me” is a longer wall of text that I want to simplify, I was trying to keep my examples short. Talking to non-technical people about a technical issue is not the easiest for me, AI has helped me dumb it down when sending an email, and helps correct my shitty grammar at times.
As for accuracy, you review what it gives you, you don’t just copy and send it without review. Also you will have to tweak some pieces that it gives out where it doesn’t make the most sense, such as if it uses wording you wouldn’t typically use. It is fairly accurate though in my use-cases.
Hallucinations are a thing, so validating what it spits out is definitely needed.
Another example: if you feel your email is too stern or gives the wrong tone, I’ve used it for that as well. “Make this sound more relaxed: well maybe if you didn’t turn off the fucking server we wouldn’t of had this outage!” (Just a silly example)
Yeah, I don’t get why so many people seem to not get that.
It’s like people who were against Intellisense in IDEs because “What if it suggests the wrong function?”…you still need to know what the functions do. If you find something you’re unfamiliar with, you check the documentation. You don’t just blindly accept it as truth.
Just because it can’t replace a person’s job doesn’t mean it’s worthless as a tool.
The disconnect is that those people use their tools differently, they want to rely on the output, not use it as a starting point.
I’m one of those people, reviewing AI slop is much harder for me than just summarizing it myself.
I find function name suggestions useful cause it’s a lookup tool, it’s not the same as a summary tool that doesn’t help me find a needle in a haystack, it just finds me a needle when I have access to many needles already, I want the good/best needle, and it can’t do that.
The issue is that AI is being invested in as if it can replace jobs. That’s not an issue for anyone who wants to use it as a spellchecker, but it is an issue for the economy, for society, and for the planet, because billions of dollars of computer hardware are being built and run on the assumption that trillions of dollars of payoff will be generated.
And correcting someone’s tone in an email is not, and will never be, a trillion dollar industry.
That’s a very different problem than the one in the OP
Correct.
I think these are actually valid examples, albeit ones that come with a really big caveat; you’re using AI in place of a skill that you really should be learning for yourself. As an autistic IT person, I get the struggle of communicating with non-technical and neurotypical people, especially clients who you have to be extra careful with. But the reality is, you can’t always do all your communication by email. If you always rely on the AI to correct your tone or simplify your language, you’re choosing not to build an essential skill that is every bit as important to doing your job well as it is to know how to correctly configure an ACL on a Cisco managed switch.
That said, I can also see how relying on the AI at first can be a helpful learning tool as you build those skills. There’s certainly an argument that by using tools, but paying attention to the output of those tools, you build those skills for yourself. Learning by example works. I think used in that way, there’s potentially real value there.
Which is kind of the broader story with Gen AI overall. It’s not that it can never be useful; it’s that, at best, it can only ever aspire to “useful.” No one, yet, has demonstrated any ability to make AI “essential” and the idea that we should be investing hundreds of billions of dollars into a technology that is, on its best days, mildly useful, is sheer fucking lunacy.
I have a blog for you
Noted, I’ll be giving that a proper read after work. Thank you.
This is such a good example of how it AI/LLMs/whatever are being used as a crutch that is far more impactful than using a spellchecker. A spell checker catches typos or helps with unfamiliar words, but doesn’t replace the underlying skill of communicating to your audience.
It works well. For example, we had a work exercise where we had to write a press release based on an example, then write a Shark Tank pitch to promote the product we came up with in the release.
I gave AI the link to the example and a brief description of our product, and it spit out an almost perfect press release. I only had to tweak a few words because there were specific requirements I didn’t feed the AI.
Then I told it to take the press release and write the pitch based on it.
Again, very nearly perfect with only having to change the wording in one spot.
The dumbed down text is basically as long as the prompt. Plus you have to double check it to make sure it didn’t have outrage instead of outage just like if you wrote it yourself.
How do you know the answer on why RIP was replaced with RIPv2 is accurate and not just a load of bullshit like putting glue on pizza?
Are you really saving time?
Yes, I’m saving time. As I mentioned in my other comment:
And
And
How do you validate the accuracy of what it spits out?
Why don’t you skip the AI and just use the thing you use to validate the AI output?
Most of what I’m asking it are things I have a general idea of, and AI has the capability of making short explanations of complex things. So typically it’s easy to spot a hallucination, but the pieces that I don’t already know are easy to Google to verify.
Basically I can get a shorter response to get the same outcome, and validate those small pieces which saves a lot of time (I no longer have to read a 100 page white paper, instead a few paragraphs and then verify small bits)
Dumbed down doesn’t mean shorter.
If the amount of time it takes to create the prompt is the same as it would have taken to write the dumbed down text, then the only time you saved was not learning how to write dumbed down text. Plus you need to know what dumbed down text should look like to know if the output is dumbed down but still accurate.
I mean, I would argue that the answer in the OP is a good one. No human asking that question honestly wants to know the sum total of Rs in the word, they either want to know how many in “berry” or they’re trying to trip up the model.
Here’s a bit of code that’s supposed to do stuff. I got this error message. Any ideas what could cause this error and how to fix it? Also, add this new feature to the code.
Works reasonably well as long as you have some idea how to write the code yourself. GPT can do it in a few seconds, debugging it would take like 5-10 minutes, but that’s still faster than my best. Besides, GPT is also fairly fluent in many functions I have never used before. My approach would be clunky and convoluted, while the code generated by GPT is a lot shorter.
If you’re well familiar with the code you’ve working on, GPT code will be convoluted by comparison. If so, you can ask GPT for the rough alpha version, and you can do the debugging and refining in a few minutes.
That makes sense as long as you’re not writing code that needs to know how to do something as complex as …checks original post… count.
It can do that just fine, because it has seen enough examples of working code. It can’t directly count correctly, sure, but it can write “i++;”, incrementing a variable by one in a loop and returning the result. The computer running the generated program is going to be doing the counting.
One thing which I find useful is to be able to turn installation/setup instructions into ansible roles and tasks. If you’re unfamiliar, ansible is a tool for automated configuration for large scale server infrastructures. In my case I only manage two servers but it is useful to parse instructions and convert them to ansible, helping me learn and understand ansible at the same time.
Here is an example of instructions which I find interesting: how to setup docker for alpine Linux: https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Docker
Results are actually quite good even for smaller 14B self-hosted models like the distilled versions of DeepSeek, though I’m sure there are other usable models too.
To assist you in programming (both to execute and learn) I find it helpful too.
I would not rely on it for factual information, but usually it does a decent job at pointing in the right direction. Another use i have is helpint with spell-checking in a foreign language.
Ask it for a second opinion on medical conditions.
Sounds insane but they are leaps and bounds better than blindly Googling and self prescribe every condition there is under the sun when the symptoms only vaguely match.
Once the LLM helps you narrow in on a couple of possible conditions based on the symptoms, then you can dig deeper into those specific ones, learn more about them, and have a slightly more informed conversation with your medical practitioner.
They’re not a replacement for your actual doctor, but they can help you learn and have better discussions with your actual doctor.
sounds like a perfectly sane idea https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2025/02/05/ai-anatomy-is-weird/
So can web MD. We didn’t need AI for that. Googling symptoms is a great way to just be dehydrated and suddenly think you’re in kidney failure.
We didn’t stop trying to make faster, safer and more fuel efficient cars after Model T, even though it can get us from place A to place B just fine. We didn’t stop pushing for digital access to published content, even though we have physical libraries. Just because something satisfies a use case doesn’t mean we should stop advancing technology.
AI is slower and less efficient than the older search algorithms and is less accurate.
We also didn’t make the model T suggest replacing the engine when the oil light comes on. Cars, as it happens, aren’t that great at self diagnosis, despite that technology being far simpler and further along than generative models are. I don’t trust the model to tell me what temperature to bake a cake at, I’m sure at hell not going to trust it with medical information. Googling symptoms was risky at best before. It’s a horror show now.