Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

You're trying to put out a forest fire with an eyedropper.

Stock your underground bunkers with enough food and water for the rest of your life and work hard to persuade the AI that you're not a threat. If possible, upload your consciousness to a starwisp and accelerate it out of the Solar System as close to lightspeed as you can possibly get it.

Those measures might work. (Or they might be impossible, or insufficient.) Changing your license won't.

yes, but now they work

Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something.

Examples:

* Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal.

* Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager.

* Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?]

Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize another element of the sentence, as the third bullet's sentence emphasizes approval.

-

edited for clarity, detail

There's nothing wrong with the passive voice.

The problem is that many people have only a poor ability to recognize the passive voice in the first place. This results in the examples being clunky, wordy messes that are bad because they're, well, clunky and wordy, and not because they're passive--indeed, you've often got only a fifty-fifty chance of the example passive voice actually being passive in the first place.

I'll point out that the commenter you're replying to used the passive voice, as did the one they responded to, and I suspect that such uses went unnoticed. Hell, I just rewrote the previous sentence to use the passive voice, and I wonder how many people think recognized that in the first place let alone think it worse for being so written.

There was a time when Microsoft Word would treat the passive voice in your writing with the same level of severity as spelling errors or major grammatical mistakes. Drove me absolutely nuts in high school.

Passive can be disastrous when used in contractual situations if the agent who should be responsible for an action isn’t identified. E.g. “X will be done”. I was once burnt by a contract that in some places left it unclear whether the customer or the contractor was responsible for particular tasks. Active voice that identifies the agent is less ambiguous

Sometimes it's used without thinking, and often the writing is made shorter and clearer when the passive voice is removed. But not always; rewriting my previous sentence to name the agents in each case, as the active voice requires in English, would not improve it. (You could remove "made", though.)

Here is a simple summary of the common voices/moods in technical writing:

- Active: The user presses the Enter key.

- Passive: The Enter key is to be pressed.

- Imperative (aka command): Press the Enter key.

The imperative mood is concise and doesn't dance around questions about who's doing what. The reader is expected to do it.

In addition to the points already made, passive voice is painfully boring to read. And it's literally everywhere in technical documentation, unfortunately.

The same could be said for books about writing, like Williams or Strunk and White. The trick is to not apply what you learn indiscriminately.

Refusing 2/3rds of grammarly's suggestions flattens everything to the same style/voice?

Plenty of people have English as a second language. Having an LLM help them rewrite their writing to make it better conform to a language they are not fluent in feels entirely appropriate to me.

I don't care if they used an LLM provided they put their best effort in to confirm that it's clearly communicating the message they are intending to communicate.

What makes you feel so entitled to tell other people what to do?

Does this extend to the heuristic TFA refers to? Where they end up (voluntarily or not) referring to what LLMs hallucinate as a kind of “normative expectation,” then use that to guide their own original work and to minimize the degree to which they’re unintentionally surprising their audience? In this case it feels a little icky and demanding because the ASCII tablature feature feels itself like an artifact of ChatGPT’s limitations. But like some of the commenters upthread, I like the idea of using it for “if you came into my project cold, how would you expect it to work?”

Having wrangled some open-source work that’s the kind of genius that only its mother could love… there’s a place for idiosyncratic interface design (UI-wise and API-wise), but there’s also a whole group of people who are great at that design sensibility. That category of people doesn’t always overlap with people who are great at the underlying engineering. Similarly, as academic writing tends to demonstrate, people with interesting and important ideas aren’t always people with a tremendous facility for writing to be read.

(And then there are people like me who have neither—I agree that you should roll your eyes at anything I ask an LLM to squirt out! :)

But GP’s technique, like TFA’s, sounds to me like something closer to that of a person with something meaningful to say, who now has a patient close-reader alongside them while they hone drafts. It’s not like you’d take half of your test reader’s suggestions, but some of them might be good in a way that didn’t occur to you in the moment, right?

image_get is clearer—unless you've used Matlab, Octave, matplotlib, SciPy, OpenCV, scikit-learn, or other things that have copied Matlab's interface. In that case, using the established name is clearer.

(Unless, on the gripping hand, your image_get function is subtly different from Matlab's imread, for example by not returning an array, in which case a different name might be better.)

I strongly prefer `image_get/image_read` for clarity, but I would just stump in a method called `imread` which is functionally the same and hide it from the documentation.

It used nonsensical parameters to the API in way that I didn't realize was possible (though obvious in hindsight). The AI got confused; it didn't think the parameters were nonsensical. It also didn't quite use them in the way that triggered the error. However it was close enough for me to realize that "hey, I never though of that possibility". I needed to fix the function to return a proper error response for the nonsense.

It also taught me to be more careful about checkpointing my work in git before letting an agent go wild on my codebase. It left a mess trying to fix its problems.

This sort of discourse really grinds my gears. The framing of it, the conceptualization.

It's not creative at all, any more than taking the sum of text on a topic, and throwing a dart at it. It's a mild, short step beyond a weighted random, and certainly not capable of any real creativity.

Myriads of HN enthusiasts often chime in here "Are humans any more creative" and other blather. Well, that's a whataboutism, and doesn't detract from the fact that creative does not exist in the AI sphere.

I agree that you have to judge its output.

Also, sorry for hanging my comment here. Might seem over the top, but anytime I see 'creative' and 'AI', I have all sorts of dark thoughts. Dark, brooding thoughts with a sense of deep foreboding.

In a combat simulator, absolutely