pigeonwarz

It's likely if you lead with this and acknowledged that there will be issues of the sort identified in the thread within your code the feedback you've got wouldn't be as harsh.

True, but the avenue is always open and the AI code is still present.

That I think is also an important issue if a project wants to keep AI out of its code.

Perhaps not, but if an LLM is being used it is better to be honest than not, in my opinion.

It's not out of attempting to make your work look any worse than it is, but a fundamental respect for the audience that read your code. I understand the power of LLMs, hell I'm using one to write some of my own software and diligently reading the code it generates and designing the architecture around it myself, but I would always try and be honest about what went into the code that I'm showing someone.

This could easily be circumvented by having the AI generate an explanation of the chosen portion of code and have the human rewrite it in their own words. It is much easier, imo, to swap clauses and put synonyms in place of other words within existing writing then it is to synthesise new text.

To steelman your point with gowld's point notwithstanding, how do you articulate ideas like infinity without notation? The point is that language is an abstraction for ideas that are difficult to rationalise 'close to the metal'.

I'm going to go on a limb here and challenge this assumption. As a parallel thread to the point put forward by michael1999, can we not argue words manifest as the result of the maths performed within LLMs, maths that, for all intents and purposes, is their world? Because the internal maths of how LLMs work is likely to be significantly cruder than the 'real' world that defines consciousness, perhaps we are closer to the ghost in the machine than we would like to admit.

It is likely that language forms a sort of quanta of reasoning. It is far easier to posit a verbal hypothesis pertaining to verbal subjects and test it than to try and do it nonverbally.

Maths is probably a great example of this. Try and describe Pythagoras' Theorem without using maths notation or words. Difficult, right? Reasoning is a House of Cards, and without understanding what the card is that exercise becomes significantly more difficult.

I doubt it. In my experience (at least when it comes to lifting), newbie gains last at least a year. Good chance that if they've been untrained all their life (or the majority of it) that phase is gonna last a real long time.

My favourite way of thinking about this is by going back to the End Poem at the end of Minecraft. The fact that words are an "interface", "very flexible" and "less terrifying than staring at the reality beyond the screen".

Maybe that reality is the true understanding of the neurobiology that defines our thoughts. To be reminded that the magic of experience can be reduced to neuronic hallucination is, frankly, horrifying. Maybe we dislike LLMs because we see their vectors and numbers as crude reminders of our own intellectual banality.

Or maybe I'm just feeling hungry and should really go eat dinner.

The best mitigation I've found against this is training Claude to collate what it does within the project dir, specifically a CLAUDE.md vision file and .claude/changelog that documents the changes it makes. The biggest pain point though is remembering to force it to do that between sessions (man is that contextual memory unreliable sometimes).