Please disclose AI use, or the name of your "writing agent" at least, so I can know to skip the article. So much "it's not X it's Y" in this post, I'm losing it.
> This isn’t whimsy; it’s how I remember who the work is actually for.
> These aren’t chatbots with personalities; they’re specialized configurations I invoke by name to focus my intent.
> That’s when I realized the naming wasn’t a quirk. It was a practice.
It is a quirk
> I’m not asking for a generic security scan. I’m saying that I need to look for what I missed.
You aren't asking for a generic security scan? It seems like you're asking for a generic security scan.
> I need to look for what I missed. I need to find the secret traveling farther than it should, the data leaking where it shouldn’t, the assumption I made that an attacker won’t make. I need to be paranoid on behalf of the users whose data and trust I’m protecting.
> The names aren’t just labels. They’re invocations. They shape my intent before the work even starts.
At least right now it's mostly in AI-related articles. Scroll any AI article and have a look at the number of topic headings as well as how many start with the word "The". I have my defenses up on any AI articles and can quickly avoid the are LLM-output with aesthetic clues. An upfront disclosure would of course be better.
Unfortunately other topics are still catching me off guard, like the article about complex numbers posted today which I managed to get through a third of before realizing all the grating bits I was reading were because it was from an LLM.
I appreciate the writer actually taking the time to explain why `george`. I have worked in some projects where some thing-a-majing or another is called `valhalla` or `thor` or something or another but there is no documentation as to why it is called that and the people who were responsible for naming them so have already ridden into the sunset. If I ever meet him, I "just want to talk" to this CTO who named US East region 2 as "eu2".
The problem is that, in any organization past a few people, someone will eventually wonder if they were the inspiration for a particular name, and not in a good way, or someone might introduce politics or something else divisive.
It's better to have arbitrary names that are memorable in some way but not common enough to be associated with someone living within recent memory.
> someone might introduce politics or something else divisive.
Reminds me of a project I was peripherally involved with many moons ago. The codename for the project was "Tardis" from Doctor Who. No problem there. But we ended up having to redo a significant portion of it later, and someone had the bright idea of changing the redo codename to "ReTardis". It was hilariously juvenile at the time, but I could see how, decades later as society gotten less tolerant of that kind of humor, the codename probably has become objectionable.
> The tech industry loves to abstract away the human. Users become “MAUs.” Problems become “pain points.” Customers become “conversions.”
The LLM loves to torture concepts into statements with pithy veneers and three-item. Punctuated. Lists. “Pain points” as an example, really? All of these terms are just more specific than the ones they’re contrasted with, which don’t have much of a human element to them to begin with.
The irony of bemoaning this while AI-mimicking a team of people and getting a computer to write for you in its own voice…
George, Ray, Agatha... Ok
As long as you are the only one managing these systems.
But the moment you involve other people, this is the worst naming possible.
I dunno, I think it works in any organisation small enough to only have a small number of any given thing. One you start having fleets of servers then you’ve got to switch to fleet naming.
As the end of the article says, to the author this is more of a "ritual".
I don't know how effective it is, but I can't imagine this would undermine the quality of the output, so if it adds a little bit of humor and human-ness to my workflow, I'm happy to try it out.
yeah. cringe.
I debate with myself is this Aghata can truly be trusted to be
> I need to find the secret traveling farther than it should, the data leaking where it shouldn’t, the assumption I made that an attacker won’t make. I need to be paranoid on behalf of the users whose data and trust I’m protecting.
at the end of the day its still an llm. but hey, I want to call Claude _Claudius_ all the time but I don't cause it'll shut me down real quick
I haven't written myself a Claude agent nor a skill nor a plugin yet, but when I do, I'm going to name it well.
As I've been asking Claude to "keep planning criticize ultrathink" very often and repeatedly, maybe I'll make a planning agent, one that helps me shepherd each plan well.
Readit News
> This isn’t whimsy; it’s how I remember who the work is actually for.
> These aren’t chatbots with personalities; they’re specialized configurations I invoke by name to focus my intent.
> That’s when I realized the naming wasn’t a quirk. It was a practice.
It is a quirk
> I’m not asking for a generic security scan. I’m saying that I need to look for what I missed.
You aren't asking for a generic security scan? It seems like you're asking for a generic security scan.
> I need to look for what I missed. I need to find the secret traveling farther than it should, the data leaking where it shouldn’t, the assumption I made that an attacker won’t make. I need to be paranoid on behalf of the users whose data and trust I’m protecting.
> The names aren’t just labels. They’re invocations. They shape my intent before the work even starts.
They are just labels.
Unfortunately other topics are still catching me off guard, like the article about complex numbers posted today which I managed to get through a third of before realizing all the grating bits I was reading were because it was from an LLM.
To be fair, I certainly name my tools. But I didn't have to use AI to invent a whole bunch of "personalities" for them.
It's better to have arbitrary names that are memorable in some way but not common enough to be associated with someone living within recent memory.
IMHO, YMMV, yada yada
Reminds me of a project I was peripherally involved with many moons ago. The codename for the project was "Tardis" from Doctor Who. No problem there. But we ended up having to redo a significant portion of it later, and someone had the bright idea of changing the redo codename to "ReTardis". It was hilariously juvenile at the time, but I could see how, decades later as society gotten less tolerant of that kind of humor, the codename probably has become objectionable.
How? Logically I don't get it.
(I'm genuinely confused by the "How?" question)
Deleted Comment
The LLM loves to torture concepts into statements with pithy veneers and three-item. Punctuated. Lists. “Pain points” as an example, really? All of these terms are just more specific than the ones they’re contrasted with, which don’t have much of a human element to them to begin with.
The irony of bemoaning this while AI-mimicking a team of people and getting a computer to write for you in its own voice…
For new hires (or people in other orgs), shouldn't need long product descriptions trying to explain team lingo means.
If they have non-descriptive human names, they should behave like people.
- Our payment system is down - Call George on the Phone and ask him to fix it..
I don't know how effective it is, but I can't imagine this would undermine the quality of the output, so if it adds a little bit of humor and human-ness to my workflow, I'm happy to try it out.
at the end of the day its still an llm. but hey, I want to call Claude _Claudius_ all the time but I don't cause it'll shut me down real quick
As I've been asking Claude to "keep planning criticize ultrathink" very often and repeatedly, maybe I'll make a planning agent, one that helps me shepherd each plan well.