That depends on the output's purpose: if the purpose is to produce readable text for a human that is _not_ me, like an article or document, then I care more about clarity, plain-speaking, and general register. If the goal is to accomplish a specific task, I don't care as much about the prose quality: I'll put up with "Honest Framings" and "load-bearing" since it seems to me that's the token that needs to be in the context for it to function.
I've been in the habit of pushing my claude-speak to codex to improve legibility, but only if I think someone is going to read it.
I will frequently post the output of a computer to slack as a part of an engineering discussion. For Claude output I'll treat it the same, wrap it in code blocks, and say something like "Claude's analysis". If its ok to post system logs, why is it less ok to post claude's output (also a computer), especially if I declare this? Is the difference that its plausibly human-level speech and thus breaks an implicit contract?
The problem is that there is no signal to the folks involved whether you have bothered to understand what you’re posting or are simply offloading that work to others.
Same issue as dumping a system log or a stack trace without any of your own analyses to be honest - people are going to wonder “okay. but what do you want me to do with this?”
But you're now just passing on the mental effort to decipher that analysis, without spending any effort of your own, onto someone else. Do you see the issue?
agreed, but IMO thats been true for most off-the-shelf skills I've seen. Instead I built my own "/meta" skill to improve my workflows, which I can use in targeted ways across my projects
I think AI optimism is an easier jump for those already immersed in computer culture, or at least the subset of that culture who view automation as a virtue.
For those either outside computer culture, or those within who might view "craft" as virtue, automating that craft is an affront.
Right now, the "automators" (pro-AI) folks seem to be pushing that culture onto the "crafters" and naturally getting pushback.
>Right now, the "automators" (pro-AI) folks seem to be pushing that culture onto the "crafters" and naturally getting pushback.
I've said this before, but generative AI proponents are walking into creative spaces with their slop and expecting to be treated as equals despite not sharing any of the same experiences or values; effectively they're trying to redefine what craft is for the original group.
I see you haven't tried a modular synthesizer yet :) Getting back to the same "place" in a patch can sometimes be impossible, and it does feel "random" until you get the hang of it.
But ultimately it isn’t unpredictable and random. That’s just a skill issue. There is literally no person good enough at prompting to create consistent, predictable, useful results.
Two years ago (Dec 2023), I visited Japan and try to use ChatGPT (GPT-3 era) to translate Kanji signs, it was OK but not great. A little over a year later (late April 2025, o1 era IIRC), I visited again and saw a political rally with hand-painted-style Kanji signs. I took a picture and asked what the political party was about. The big "wow" moment was how it would write inline python code to crop analyze the image while it was thinking, then combine it with web searches to eventually find me the website with a summary of what they were about. It definitely hit home for me the potential of what these were capable of.
I would definitely agree that data center investments would need to be coupled with energy investments. If this could act as a catalyst for more (sustainable) energy production that would be a net win for all IMO.
Do you feel poison fountain is actually effective? To me it seems like free chaos engineering for ingestion platforms. Wouldn't it paradoxically harden data ingestion?
Not sure about flawed code logic, but it is embarassingly easy to plant false information into models. Make a few static sites with random info, crosslink them, reference them on reddit a few times, then plant the payload there.
I've been trying to solve a lot of the issues brought up here, like personal automation, note taking, article summarizing/indexing, etc. What I've learned so far is that no level of AI-enabled automation will help me with my inherent ADD. All it means is that I have more started projects, but just as many finished ones. It has been a big enabler for things I'm already knowledgeable about, but the cognitive debt issue is real: A machine that thinks for me can't help me think better by itself.
I've been in the habit of pushing my claude-speak to codex to improve legibility, but only if I think someone is going to read it.