请勿标注该大语言模型。
Don't credit the LLM

原始链接: https://isaacsu.com/2026/08/dont-credit-the-llm/

作者批评了同行在工作中明确标注使用大语言模型(LLM)的趋势,并将其比作飞行员在飞行中广播所使用的航电软件。虽然这种披露可能源于分享功劳、缓解冒名顶替综合征或强调工具效率的愿望,但作者认为这是多余且适得其反的。 文中指出这种行为背后的几种动机:在未经审查的情况下外包工作、通过这种方式迎合公司规定,或是试图为潜在的错误预先开脱。 归根结底,作者认为功劳与责任是密不可分的。通过将功劳归于工具,个人在无意中削弱了自己对产出结果应负的责任。文章最后得出结论:专业人士应全面承担工作成果(无论是成功还是瑕疵),而不是躲在所使用的技术背后。真正的专业性在于对最终产品负责,无论过程中使用了何种工具。

这篇 Hacker News 讨论探讨了关于在专业工作中是否应注明或披露大语言模型(LLM)使用情况的争议。 参与者持不同观点: * **支持披露的理由:** 许多人认为披露对于保持透明度和设定预期至关重要。这有助于同事评估信任度、承认潜在的质量差异,并满足学术或专业上的署名标准。 * **反对署名的理由:** 持怀疑态度的人认为,LLM 仅仅是工具,类似于计算器或集成开发环境(IDE),而非共同作者。他们警告称,为 LLM“署名”可能成为推卸“低质”工作责任的方式,甚至助长了人工智能公司试图取代人类专业知识的营销叙事。 * **关于责任的论点:** 一种主流观点认为,无论使用何种工具,最终输出结果的责任均由人类操作者独自承担。将工作成果归功于 AI 可能被视为试图借免责声明逃避责任,而全盘承担责任则迫使个人必须对其提交的工作进行核实、理解并负责。 最终,共识倾向于认为:虽然关于工作流程的透明度很有价值,但将 AI 视为具有感知能力的共同作者是具有误导性的,且可能对个人的职业操守造成损害。
相关文章

原文

Lately, an odd habit seems to have caught on among my peers when they’ve done something with an LLM.

When asked “how many support requests have we received about the new Feature X?”, they answer “according to [LLM tool], we’ve received 17 requests since it was released.” When posting a pitch document or a pull request, they volunteer “I asked [LLM tool] to write this for me” or “[LLM tool] wrote the unit tests”.

Odd. Like a writer disclosing the spellchecker they used alongside every piece, or a pilot announcing their version of avionics software over the PA while taxiing to the runway.

Why did I need to know that?

At first, I put it down to a bit of novelty and excitement. But as this wore on, I started to wonder why someone might feel the need to declare their use of an LLM.

Perhaps:

  1. You believe in ascribing credit where credit is due. Using an LLM feels like cheating so disclosing it makes you feel less like an imposter for having produced something amazing.
  2. The LLM’s performance exceeded your wildest expectations, ergo the work is impressive by association. Never mind that it is only 80 percent complete and no one knows which 20 percent is missing.
  3. You outsourced the work to an LLM and didn’t bother to review it before hitting send. There may be mistakes but spotting them is left as an exercise for your recipients.
  4. LLM use has been mandated by Up Above. Claiming you’ve used one (even if you haven’t) buys you a higher tolerance for sloppiness since you are presumably facilitating your own eventual redundancy.

For 2 to 4, all I can say is I’m sorry and I hope things work out for you.

But for the first reason, I’d challenge the notion of sharing credit with a tool, let alone feeling like a cheat for using one. Credit and accountability are two sides of the same coin. A tool can only take as much credit as it can be held accountable for, so crediting it inadvertently dilutes your own accountability for the work.

If you’ve created something profound or remarkable, take complete credit for it. If it misses the mark or turns out to be utter slop, also take full responsibility and improve from there. This is how every meaningful or valuable thing was ever created long before the advent of “AI can make mistakes” and will remain so long after, with or without LLMs.

HN discussion

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com