Birbla

Discussion summary

Discussions focus on the reliability of AI models, especially frontier models, and their tendency to generate plausible but sometimes inaccurate or nonsensical outputs. Users share concerns about AI verification, internal documentation, and AI's role in workflows.

What the discussion says

  • AI models often produce plausible but inaccurate information.
  • Some users highlight the importance of human oversight.
  • Concerns about AI-generated documentation and verification.
  • Suggestions for better AI integration in workflows.
“every time I thought the model was hallucinating, I was in fact the…”
— schappim
“the model usually doesn't get things outright incorrect... but the solution does contain a lot of nonsense.”
— tempfile

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • All I can say is you're lucky that your meat proxies are still identifying themselves as such.

    I've had people forward AI responses … sans "Claude said". I'm quite literally talking to Claude via proxy, and I've caught more than one person pulling this stunt. It's a nightmare of negative productivity, though. Just why? And invariably the kicker is they still want me to solve their problem, whatever that might be.

    by deathanatos
  • Pre LLM's I used to get this from managers, but what they would do was quote verbatim from stack overflow or some random blog post of how to do a thing with no to little context or understanding of what they were talking about. And it always turned out to be from amongst the top three results from some popular search engine when describing the complex problem the company/team was facing.
    by 8by3
  • // Claude said: [giant response verbatim]

    I am lucky that I work with great teams and so when someone says "this is how Claude (or Gemini) summaries the situation" it does mean "I read it and it's right-enough to be helpful, so I am passing it along without editing"

    Obviously for this to work you need (1) a team that's smart and mature enough to own the AI output it puts forward and (2) shared understanding that people are operating this way.

    I do find that when you have 1 and 2 this is a real accelerant. I asked a sales rep the other day what was going on in a key account and he forwarded along a 10 page Claude synthesis.

    The reality is this is better intel than I would have been able to get in a pre-AI era this quickly. And yes once I went into the weeds on the doc I found one thing that didn't make sense and I asked the rep he stared at it and said "you are right that's a hallucination I don't notice" but overall it was still worth it.

    by xyzelement
  • If you create a machine for laziness you're going to get lazy people. It's only going to get worse I'm afraid.

    Do you guys think we're going to see a de-evolution of human beings due to technology?

    by jpnc
  • One way to prevent obvious AI language from sneaking in text destined for other human beings is to ask the model to produce ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English bullet points.

    This will result in a list of sentences that are clear and explanatory, easier to double-check, and convenient for the user to rewrite into a more readable format with a human voice.

    by felipeerias
  • At my last job, a coworker did this to me. The first time it happened, I ignored it. The second time, I responded in public saying “thanks but I can ask Claude myself.” Nobody ever pasted me an LLM response again. YMMV with team size and seniority though
    by maccard
  • On social media, I saw the much more vulgar

    “Learned engineering just to become the condom between Claude Code and prod”

    And that (re)framing helped as well to think about the “what are we even (left) doing” as an industry

    by gregsadetsky
  • I deal with this all day long at work and it’s exhausting. People almost acting like no one has thought of it “I asked Claude what happened, and it spit out this 300 line response. Can you read it for me and see if it’s right?”

    What kills me is you might expect this from a busy high level manager that doesn’t really understand the technical details and they just point the AI to an error they got. They don’t know how to interpret the response, so they ask someone who work on the thing. It’s still kinds annoying because you could just ask, but whatever. But to get these from junior and senior engineer for the areas they work in and expect someone else to read it for them? It’s crazy behavior. How can someone serious even think that’s ok.

    by eddythompson80

Explore Birbla archives