I expect commenters on HN to substantiate their opinion rather than just be dismissive. I called it strange because I think commenters here are smart enough to dig under the layer of marketing from extremist sides (Kool-AI'd and anti-AI) and discuss technical merits and downsides.
Grug Notes is good case of applying LLMs — organizing information — which is far superior than previous algorithms (try extracting entities with regexps or previous NLP models). It also doesn't really do over-the-top BS advertising of its AI features. But no, let's dismiss it because "AI".
There's the whole thread of comments, but so far there's not a single comment (including yours!) explaining their point of view apart from "I don't like AI", "I don't like AI marketing", "I think it would be slow because I see 'AI'" or "this part of the software was not made by or is run by the same person who made the software".
Like it or not, AI has a mounting number of negative connotations, especially in the tech crowd. You tell me your product has AI in it, and I envision something that takes seconds to respond, and is more than likely some janky hack on top of an OpenAI API. It's not a selling point.
"measurably better" is a strange term for a process where any two people don't even agree on what better means. Obviously different people have different ideas of what constitutes good information extraction. AI isn't a synonym for algorithm, in fact modern AI systems don't meet the criteria for that definition. There's a big difference between deterministic and probabilistic systems, and there's yet a bigger difference between generative AI systems and the former.
Reminder an algorithm is a finite sequence of mathematically rigorous instructions, which is why we can in fact meaningfully talk about the performance of timsort or quicksort. Not only is "Grug AI" not measurably better, it isn't even measurable in the first place. Not just to me, but not even to the guy who runs the website.
In a note taking system it seems quite natural that one wants precision, transparency and full control and not use a technology that by design cannot accurately distinguish what even exists in my notes in the first place and what doesn't.
Furthermore, the original "grug developer brain" essay argued about reducing complexity. Despite the name, slapping AI on a simple note taking editor makes it very non-grug.
As for third-party: almost everything is third-party online. I agree with that if you don't want to use software using third party services (be it AWS/GCloud or OpenAI), you shouldn't use it (I don't, I keep my notes locally). But that's now what the comment said.
I'm both the main user and only developer -- so I try to do grug way first in user experience, then in development. I think I've realized that no matter what you set out to do, it gets insanely complex. But user experience is more important to keep simple than anything else imo. But you're right, everyone has their own definition of grugness.
Notes are personal. I don't want my notes online at all, let alone being feed into a language model likely managed by a third party that feeds them into it.
No it's not. AI is pretty much synonymous with: online. No normal user is running them locally, and they are nearly always a third party to the application in which they are deployed.
PS In reference to running AI locally: for my own (non-online) app (Calcish) I specifically waited to introduce AI until local modals become usable, as I didn't want to just add APIs and be done with it — it happened and now the app provides a choice.
AI - whether deployed locally or in the cloud - is a huge thing with lots of complexity and a high degree of non-determinism. That's exactly what many people don't want with their notes. Heck most just use a text file to be super safe and simple.
On the contrary, LLMs are less complex than various NLP algorithms (many of them also use machine learning models).
Same with semantic search.
I keep my notes in text files. But I understand that LLMs are better for powering the features Grug Notes provides than other algorithms, even if they are non-deterministic.
I would apply the same reasoning to NLP, or "clever search" that goes beyond simple spelling mistakes. heck most people even dislike those stupid GUIs that keep changing to "adjust to the user"
Got you. We all have different workflows and needs, indeed. Apologies for assuming you were against this particular technology for notetaking in general, although your comment could have been more detailed:
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work.
To the extent that I don't want ai modifying my notes, I agree. But when AI can help organize, tag, and make my life easier, then I'm all in. It's gotten better, but there are still cases where entities are tagged incorrectly, and you have to manually correct them. I always try to prioritize manual adjustments in the app over AI input. The goal is to reduce the effort I need to jot random info down.
they were clear, but nearly every instance of that clear opinion I have considered illegitimate once i learn the rationale.
Using the following words for simplicity, not to be inflammatory;
It typically amounts to "AI stinky" or "I don't want big brother to have my data"
I consider "AI stinky" variants invalid because this is one of many software development paradigms. simply because the market is overhyped, it doesn't mean that all applications are automatically useless.
"big brother" fails to consider the incremental big-brotherness. we, when using tools like this, expose our data already. The incremental risk from an LLM provider seems small.
You don't want search and information extraction to be powered by a certain algorithm that is measurably better at this than other algorithms?
Is it okay that this product uses timsort or you're only ok with quicksort?