I really wish some of my coworkers would stop using LLMs to write me emails or even Teams messages. It does feel extremely rude, to the point I don't even want to read them anymore.
"Hey, I can't help but notice that some of the messages you're sending me are partially LLM-generated. I appreciate you wanting to communicate stylistically and grammatically correct, but I personally prefer the occasional typo or inelegant expression over the chance of distorted meanings or lost/hallucinated context.
Going forward, could you please communicate with me directly? I really don't mind a lack of capitalization or colloquial expressions in internal communications."
Even worse when they accidently leave in the dialog with the AI. Dead giveaway. I got an email from a colleague the other day and at the bottom was this line:
> Would you like me to format this for Outlook or help you post it to a specific channel or distribution list?
Didn't our parents go through the same thing when email came out?
My dad used to say: "Stop sending me emails. It's not the same." I'd tell him, "It's better. "No, it's not. People used to sit down and take the time to write a letter, in their own handwriting. Every letter had its own personality, even its own smell. And you had to walk to the post office to send it. Now sending a letter means nothing."
Change is inevitable. Most people just won't like it.
A lot of people don't realise that Transformers were originally designed to translate text between languages. Which, in a way, is just another way of improving how we communicate ideas.
Right now, I see two things people are not happy about when it comes to LLMs:
1. The message you sent doesn't feel personal. It reads like something written by a machine, and I struggle to connect with someone who sends me messages like that.
2. People who don't speak English very well are now sending me perfectly written messages with solid arguments. And honestly, my ego doest’t like it because I used to think I was more intelligent than them. Turns out I wasn't. It was just my perception, based on the fact that I speak the language natively.
Both of these things won't matter anymore in the next two or three years.
I know people with disabilities that struggle with writing. They feel that AI enables them to express themselves better than they could without the help. I know that’s not necessarily what you’re dealing with but it’s worth considering.
LinkedIn is probably the worst culprit. It has always been a wasteland of “corporate/professional slop”, except now the interface deliberately suggests AI-generated responses to posts. I genuinely cannot think of a worse “social network” than that hell hole.
“Very insightful! Truly a masterclass in turning everyday professional rituals into transformative personal branding opportunities. Your ability to synergize authenticity, thought leadership, and self-congratulation is unparalleled.”
one of my reports started responding to questions with AI Slop. I asked if he was actually writing those sentences (he wasn't), so I gave him that exact feedback - it felt to me like he wasn't even listening, when he clearly jut copy-pasted clearly AI responses. Thankfully he stopped doing it.
Of course as models get better at writing, it'll be harder and harder to tell. IMO the people who stand to lose the most are the AI sloppers, in that case - like in the South Park episode, as they'll get lost in commitments and agreements they didn't even know they made.
A lot of the reason why I even ask other people is not to get a simple technical answer but to connect, understand another person's unexepected thoughts, and maybe forge a collaboration –– in addition to getting an answer of course. Real people come up with so many side paths and thoughts, whereas AI feels lifeless and drab.
To me, someone pasting in an AI answer says: I don't care about any of that. Yeah, not a person I want to interact with.
> "I vibe-coded this pull request in just 15 minutes. Please review"
>
> Well, why don't you review it first?
My current day to day problem is that, the PRs don't come with that disclaimer; The authors won't even admit if asked directly. Yet I know my comments on the PR will be fed to the cursor so it makes more crappy edits, and I'll be expecting an entirely different PR in 10 minutes to review from scratch without even addressing the main concern. I wish I could at least talk to the AI directly.
(If you're wondering, it's unfortunately not in my power right now to ignore or close the PRs).
Rather than close or ignore PRs, you should start a dialogue with them. Teach them that the AI is not a person, and if they contribute buggy or low quality code, it’s their responsibility, not the AIs, and ultimately their job on the line.
Another perspective I’ve found to resonate with people is to remind them — if you’re not reviewing the code or passing it through any type of human reasoning to determine its fit to solving the business problem - what value are you adding at all? If you just copy pasta through AI, you might as well not even be in the loop, because it’d be faster for me to do it directly, and have the context of the prompts as well.
This is a step change in our industry and an opportunity to mentor people who are misusing it. If they don’t take it, there are plenty of people who will. I have a feeling that AI will actually separate the wheat from the chaff, because right now, people can hide a lack of understanding and effort because the output speed is so low for everyone. Once those who have no issue with applying critical thinking and debugging to the problem and work well with the business start to leverage AI, it’ll become very obvious who’s left behind.
100% real life is much more grim. I can only hope we'll somehow figure it out.
I haven't personally been in this position, but when I think about it, looping all your reviews through the cursor would reduce your perceived competence, wouldn't it? Is giving them a negative performance review an option?
Trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets. If somebody asks for my time to review slop, especially without a disclaimer, I'll simply not be reviewing their pull requests going forward.
> "For the longest time, writing was more expensive than reading"
Such a great point and one which I hadn't considered. With LLMs, we've flipped this equation, and it's having all sorts of weird consequences. Most obviously for me is how much more time I'm spending on code reviews. Its massively increased the importance of making the PR as digestible as possible for the reviewer, as now both author and reviewer are much closer to equal understanding of the changes compared to if the author had written the PR solely by themselves. Who knows what other corollaries there are to this reversal of reading vs writing
Yes, just like painting a picture used to be extremely time-consuming compared to looking at a scene. Today, these take roughly the same effort.
Humanity has survived and adapted, and all in all, I'm glad to live in a world with photography in it.
That said, part of that adaptation will probably involve the evolution of a strong stigma against undeclared and poorly verified/curated AI-generated content.
Someone telling you about a conversation they had with ChatGPT is the new telling someone about your dream last night (which sucks because I’ve had a lot of conversations I wanna share lol).
I think it's different to talk about a conversation with AI versus just passing the AI output to someone directly.
The former is like "hey, I had this experience, here's what it was about, what I learned and how it affected me" which is a very human experience and totally valid to share. The latter is like "I created some input, here's the output, now I want you reflect and/or act on it".
For example I've used Claude and ChatGPT to reflect and chat about life experiences and left feeling like I gained something, and sometimes I'll talk to my friends or SO about it. But I'd never share the transcript unless they asked for it.
It feels really interesting to the person who experienced it, not so much to the listener. Sometimes it can be fun to share because it gives you a glimmer of insight into how someone else's mind works, but the actual content is never really the point.
If anything they share the same hallucinatory quality - ie: hallucinations don't have essential content, which is kind of the point of communication.
Hm. Kinda, though at least with the dream it was your brain generating it. Well, parts of your brain while other parts were switched off, and the on parts were operating in a different mode than usual, but all that just means it's fun to try to get insight into someone else's head by reading (way too many) things into thir dreams.
With ChatGPT, it's the output of the pickled brains of millions of past internet users, staring at the prompt from your brain and free-associating. Not quite the same thing!
I have encountered this problem at work a few times, the worst was someone asking if a list of pros and cons from something we were developing and asking if the list was accurate…
I spent a long time responding to each pro and con assuming they got this list from somewhere or another companies promotional material. Every point was wrong in different ways, not understanding. I was giving detailed responses to each point explaining how they are wrong. Initially I thought the list was obtained from someone in marketing who did not understand, after a while I thought maybe this was AI and asked… they told me they just asked the pros and cons of the product/program to ChatGPT and was asking me to verify it it was correct or not before communicating to customers.
If they had just asked me the pros and cons I could have responded in a much shorter amount of time. ChatGPT basically DOSed me because the time taken to produce the text was nothing compared to the time it took me to respond.
I recently had a non-technical person contest my opinion on a subtle technical issue with ChatGPT screenshots (free tier o4) attached in their email. The LLM wasn't even wrong, just that it had the answer wrapped in customary platitudes to the user and they are not equipped to understand the actual answer of the model.
Yes. I just had a bad experience with an online shop. I got the thing I ordered, but the interaction was bad so I sent a note to their support email saying "I like your company, but I recently had this experience that felt icky, here's what happened" and their "AI Agent Bot" replied with a whole lot of platitudes and "Since you’ve indicated no action is needed and your order has been placed, we will be closing this ticket."
I'm all for LLM's helping people write better emails, but using them to auto-close support tickets is rude.
It gets interesting once you start a discussion about a topic with someone who had ChatGPT doing all the work. They often do not have the same in-depth understanding of what is written there vs. someone who wrote it themselves. Which may not come as a surprise, but yet - here we are. It‘s these kind of discussions I find exhausting, because they show no honesty and no interest by the person I'm interacting with. I usually end these conversations quickly.
While I understand this sentiment, some people simply suck at writing nice emails or have a major communication issue. It’s also not bad to run your important emails through multiple edits via AI.
>It’s also not bad to run your important emails through multiple edits via AI.
The issue is that we both know 99% of output are not the result of this. AI is used to cut corners, not to cross your T's and dot your I's. It's similar to how having the answer banks for a textbook is a great tool to self-correct and reinforce correct learning. In reality these banks aren't sold publicly because most students will use it to cheat.
And I'm not even saying this in a shameful way per se; high schoolers are under so much pressure, used to be given hours of homework on top of 7+ hours of instruction, and in some regards the content is barely applicable to long term goals past keeping their GPA up. The temptation to cheat is enormous at that stage.
----
Not so much for 30 year old me who wants to refresh themselves on calculus concepts for an interview. There also really shouldn't be any huge pressure to "cheat" your co-workers either (there sometimes is, though).
Seems like there are potential privacy issues involved in sharing important emails with these companies, especially if you are sharing what the other person sent as well.
I work with a lot of people who are in Spanish speaking countries who have English as a second language. I would much rather read their own words with grammatical errors than perfect AI slop.
Hell I would rather just read their reply in Spanish and if they need to write it out really fast without struggling trying to translate it and I use my own B1 level Spanish comprehension than read AI generated slop.
I get annoyed when I ask someone a question (work related or not) and they don't know the answer, they will then proceed to tell a prompt for ChatGPT in a stream of consciousness sort of way.
Then I get even more annoyed when they decide to actually use their own prompt, and then read back to me the answer.
It seems there are people deeply afraid of admitting they don't know something, despite the fact that not knowing things is the default. But giving the wrong answer is always worse.
Yes it is absolutely rude in many contexts. In a team context you are looking for common understanding and being “on the same page”. If someone needs to consult AI to get up to speed that’s fine, then their interaction with you should reflect what they have learned.
My boss posts GPT output as gospel in chats and task descriptions. So now instead of being a "you figure it out" it's "read this LLM generated garbage and then figure it out".
I don't mind people using AI to help refine their thoughts and proof their output but when it is used in absence of their own thoughts I am starting to value that person a little bit less.
Exactly. I've already seen two very obvious AI comments on Reddit in the past 2 days. One even had the audacity to copy a real user's reply back into the AI and pass the response back again. I just blocked them since they're in a sub I like to hang out in.
It always been rude to tell someone to "just google it". But unsurprisingly, as Google Search got worse and worse over time, it got a lot more rude to do this. A search that may have brought you to useful documentation or high quality tutorials in 2005-2010 Google often just returns SEO garbage now. If you aren't at least checking what the results are, telling someone to google it has become beyond useless.
If LLMs can be fixed to the point where they are as reliable as 2005-2010 Google, maybe you can start blindly pasting output or telling people to "just chatgpt it", and it won't be so useless for the victim anymore. But I'm not convinced the hallucination problem and inability to properly cite sources will be solved anytime soon, given how non-deterministic LLMs are. And it appears it's just creating a brand new SEO spam issue, with Gemini results at the top of the page based on the contents of spammy results.
> For the longest time, writing was more expensive than reading. If you encountered a body of written text, you could be sure that at the very least, a human spent some time writing it down. The text used to have an innate proof-of-thought, a basic token of humanity.
I think it all goes to crap when there is some economic incentive: e.g. blogspam that is profitable thanks to ads and anyone that stumbles upon it, alongside being able to generate large amounts of coherent sounding crap quickly.
I have seen quite a few sites like that in the first pages of both Google and DuckDuckGo which feels almost offensive. At the same time, posts that promise something and then don't go through with it are similarly bad, regardless of AI generated or not.
For example, recently I needed to look up how vLLM compares with Ollama (yes, for running the very same abominable intelligence models, albeit for more subjectively useful reasons) because Qwen3-30B-A3B and Devstral-24B both run pretty badly on Nvidia L4 cards with Ollama, which feels disappointing given their price tags and relatively small sizes of those models.
Yet pretty much all of the comparisons I found just regurgitated high level overviews of the technologies, like 5-10 sites that felt almost identical and could have been copy pasted from one another. Not a single one of those had a table of various models and their tokens/s on a given bit of hardware, for both Ollama and vLLM.
Back in the day when nerds got passionate about Apache2 vs Nginx, you'd see comparisons with stats and graphs and even though I wouldn't take all of those at face value (since with Apache2 you should turn off .htaccess and also tweak the MPM settings for more reasonable performance), at least there would sometimes be a Git repo.
Whether it's LLM output is orthogonal to rudeness, lack of sensibility or generic content.There are all sorts of tools out there which use LLMs as a front end for some pretty spectacular back-end functions.
If you're offered an AI output it should be taken as one of two situations: (a) the person adopts the output, and maybe put a fair amount of effort into interacting with the LLM to get it just right, but can't honestly claim ownership (because who can), or (b) the output is outside their domain of expertise and functioning as a toehold or thumbnail in some esoteric topic that no single resource they know can, and probably the point is so specific that such a resource doesn't exist.
The tenor of the article makes me confused about what people have been doing, specifically , with ChatGPT that so alienated the author. I guess the point is there are some topics LLMs are fundamentally incompetent to perform? Maybe its more the perception that the LLM is being treated as an oracle than a tool for discovery?
Not seeing a problem here as long as the one showing the output has reviewed it themselves before showing, and made the decision to show based on that review. That's what we should be advocating for. So far what I'm seeing is people slamming others or ignoring automatically on even the vague suspicion that something has been generated.
Just the other day I witnessed in a chat someone commenting that another (who previously sent an AI summary of something) had sent a "block of text" which they wouldn't read because it was too much, then went to read it when they were told it was from Quora, not generated. It was a wild moment for me, and I said as much.
> the one showing the output has reviewed it themselves before showing
Now let's really asks ourselves how this works out in reality. Cut corners. People using LLM's are not using it to enhance their conversation; they are using it to get it over with.
It also doesn't help that yes, AI generated text tends to be overly verbose. Saying a lot of nothing. There are times where that formality is needed, but not in some casual work conversations. Just get to the point.
I love the post but disagree with the first example. "I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said: <...>". That seems totally fine to me. The sender put work into the prompt and the user is free to read the AI output if they choose.
I think in any real conversation, you're treating AI as this authority figure to end the conversation, despite the fact it could easily be wrong. I would extract the logic out and defend the logic on your own feet to be less rude.
This is exactly how I feel about both advertising and unnecessary notifications. "The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is a virus."
I believe there was a very similar line of argument at the time photography was becoming popular. "Sure, it's a useful tool, but it will never be an art form like painting. It only reproduces what's already there!"
Yet today, we both cringe at forgettable food Instagrams and marvel at the World Press Photo of the Year.
I do fully agree with the conclusions on etiquette. Just like it's rude to try to pass a line-traced photo as a freehand drawing, decompressing very little information into a wall of text without a disclaimer is rude.
I got a feature request in the form of a PR a few months that said "chatgpt generated this as a possible implementation, does it work"?
I stopped there and replied that if you don't care enough to test if it works, then clearly you don't actually want the feature, and closed the ticket.
I have gotten other PRs that are more in the form of "hey I don't know what I'm doing. I used GPT but and it seems to work but I don't understand this part". I'm happy to help point in the right direction for those. Because an least they're trying. And seem like this is part of their learning.
... Or they just asked jippity to make it seem that way.
We will have a web where proof of humanity is the de facto standard. Its only a question of when. Things have to get worse before they get better in afraid
There's still a sort of web of trust. All you have to do is find people who you really trust and hate AI. For instance, people who know me know that there's no way in hell that I'd ever use any sort of generative AI, for anything.
I'm guessing that you've never actually lived in that world...
When I got squggily written cursive letters from my grandma I could be pretty sure those were her words though up by herself, for the effort to accurately reproduce the consistent mess she made would have been great. But the moment we moved to the typewriter and then other digital means uniformly printed out on paper or screens you've really just assumed that it was written by the human you were expecting.
Furthermore, the vast majority of communications done in business long before now were not done by 'people' per say. They were done by processes. In the vast majority of business email that I type out there is a large amount of process that would not occur if I were talking to a friend. Moreso this communication is facilitative to some other end goal. If the entire process that existed could be automated away humanity would be better off as some mostly useless work would be eliminated.
Do you know why people are so willing to use AI to communicate with each other? Because at the end of the day they don't give two shits about communicating with you. It's an end goal of receiving a paycheck. There is no passion, no deep interest, no entertainment for them in doing so. It's a process demanded of them because of how we integrate Moloch into our modern lives.
The problem I've been having is when I spend time researching a problem, I link documentation and propose a clean solution. Someone I'm talking with will then send a screenshot of deepseek or chatgpt essentially agreeing with me.
I don't care what chatgpt or deepseek thinks about the proposal. I care what _you_ think about it - that's why I'm sending it to you.
> For the longest time, writing was more expensive than reading. If you encountered a body of written text, you could be sure that at the very least, a human spent some time writing it down. The text used to have an innate proof-of-thought, a basic token of humanity.
> "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one."
Quote is from Mark Twain and perfectly encapsulates the sentiment. Writing something intended for another person to read was previously an effort. Some people were good at it, some were less good. But now, everyone can generate some median-level effort.
In science fiction dystopias, there is often the "adjustment to the machines taking over" phase, with analysis of the arguments of those resisting. AI is rapidly ticking the boxes of common "shift to dystopia" writings.
Cause all an LLM is, is a reflection of its input.
Garbage in garbage out.
If we're going to have this rule about AI, maybe we should have it about... everything. From your mom's last Facebook post, to what is said by influencers to this post...
That's not really true at all, at least at the end user level.
You can have a very thoughtful LLM prompt and get a garbage response if the model fails to generate a solid, sound answer to your prompt. Hard questions with verifiable but obscure answers, for instance, where it generates fake citations.
You can have a garbage prompt and get not-garbage output if you are asking in a well-understood area with a well-understood problem.
And the current generation of company-provided LLMs are VERY highly trained to make the answer look non-garbage in all cases, increasing the cognitive load on you to figure out.
Previously there was some requirement for novel synthesis. You at least had to string your thoughts together into some kind of argument.
Now that's no longer the case and there are lazy or unthoughtful people that simply pass along AI outputs, raw and completely unprocessed, as cognitive work for other human beings to deal with.
An LLM's output being a reflection of its output would imply determinism, which is the opposite of their value prop. "Garbage in, garbage out" is an addage born from traditional data pipelines. "Anything in, generic slop, possibly garbage, out" is the new status quo.
Applications could automatically insert subtle icons next to messages that are automatically generated. It wouldn't work for copy-and-pasted text but it's a start.
Maybe even a post-processing step that replaces all spaces with a suitable Unicode character to act as a watermark. There are more sophisticated ways to watermark text that aren't as easily thwarted with a search/replace, but it might work for some low-risk applications.
In addition to what others have complained about, another issue I haven't seen highlighted as much in the comments is the infuriating explosion of content length.
AI responses seem to have very low information density by default, so for me the irritation is threefold—it requires very little mental effort for the sender (i.e., I often read responses that don't feel sufficiently considered); it is often poorly validated by the sender; and it is disrespectful to the reader's time.
Like some of the other commenters, I am also not in a position to change this at work, but I am disheartened by how some of my fellow engineers have taken to putting up low effort PRs with errors, as well as unreasonably long design docs. My entire company seems to have bought into the whole "AI-first company" thing without actually validating if the outputs are worth the squeeze. Maybe sometimes they are, but I get a sense that the path of least resistance tends toward accepting lower quality code and communication.
As a non-native English speaker, I’ve often struggled to communicate nuance or subtlety in writing—especially when addressing non-technical audiences. LLMs have been a game-changer for me. They’ve significantly improved my writing and made it much easier to articulate my thoughts clearly.
Sure, it can be frustrating that they don’t adapt to a user’s personal style. But for those of us who haven’t fully developed that stylistic sense (which is common among non-native speakers), it’s still a huge leap forward.
I can buy into this. I always thought it was rude or at least insulting when Hollywood robotically creates slop movies. As in, of course they can do it, but damn is it insulting. There really are two types of people in the world:
a) Quantity > Quality if it prints $$$.
or
b) Quality > Quantity if it feels like the right thing to do.
Witnessing type A at scale is a first-class ticket into misanthropy.
The problem here is that I’ve been accused multiple times of using LLMs to write slop when it was genuinely written by myself.
So I apologized and began actually using LLMs while making sure the prompt included style guides and rules to avoid the tell tale signs of AI. Then some of these geniuses thanked me for being more genuine in my response.
A lot of this stuff is delusional. You only find it rude because you’re aware it’s written by AI. It’s the awareness itself that triggers it. In reality you can’t tell the difference.
On the whole it's considered bad to mislead people. If my love letter to you is in fact a pre-written form, "my darling [insert name here]", and you suspect, but your suspicion is just baseless paranoia and a lucky guess, I suppose you're being delusional and I'm not being rude. But I'm still doing something wrong. Even if you don't suspect, and I call off the scam, I was still messing with you.
But the definition of being "misleading" is tricky, because we have personas and need them in order to communicate, which in any context at all is a kind of honest, sincere play-acting.
I did too, the AWS “house style” (former ProServe employee) of writing even before LLMs can come across as AI Slop. Look at some blog posts on AWS even pre-2021.
I too use an LLM to help me get rid of generic filler and I do have my own style of technical writing and editing. You would never know I use an LLM.
I’m building a tool to help filter these kinds of low value articles out (especially the flow of constant AI negativity, but it will work for many topics). If you’re interested email me at linotype@fastmail.com and I’ll send you a link when it’s ready.
I have one of those coworkers. I tell him I have a problem with a missing BIOS setting. He comes back 2 minutes later "Yeah I asked an LLM and it said to go into [submenu that doesn't exist] and uncheck [setting I'm trying to find].
What's even more infuriating is that he won't take "I've checked and that submenu doesn't exist" for an answer and insists to check again. Had to step away for a fag a few times in fear of putting his face through the desk.
I find it as yet another way to externalize costs: I spend 0 time thinking, I dump AI slop on you and ask you to review it or refute me with the nonsense that I just sent you.
Last time someone did this to me I sent them a few other answers by the same LLM to the same prompt, all different, with no commentary.
LLMs are very very good at adding words in a way that looks "well written" (to our current mental filters) without adding meaning or value.
I wonder how long it will be before LLM-text trademarks become seen as a sign of bad writing or laziness instead? And then maybe we'll have an arms race of stylistic changes.
---
Completely agree with the author:
Earlier this week I asked Claude to summarize a bunch of code files since I was looking for a bug. It wrote paragraphs and had 3 suggestions. But when I read it, I realized it was mostly super generic and vague. The conditions that would be required to trigger the bug in those ways couldn't actually exist, but it put a lot of words around the ideas. I took longer to notice that they were incorrect suggestions as a result.
I told it "this won't happen those ways [because blah blah blah]" and it gave me the "you are correct!" compliment-dance and tried again. One new suggestion and a claimed reason about how one of its original suggestions might be right. The new suggestion seemed promising, but I wasn't entirely convinced. Tried again. It went back to the first three suggestions - the "here's why that won't happen" was still in the context window, but it hit some limit of its model. Like it was trying to reconcile being reinforcement-learning'd into "generate something that looks like a helpful answer" with "here is information in the context window saying the text I want to generate is wrong" and failing. We got into a loop.
It was a rare bug so we'll see if the useful-seeming suggestion was right or not but I don't know yet. Added some logging around it and some other stuff too.
The counterfactuals are hard to evaluate:
* would I have identified that potential change quicker without asking it? Or at all?
* would I have identified something else that it didn't point out?
* what if I hadn't noticed the problems with some other suggestions and spent a bunch of time chasing them?
The words:information ratio was a big problem in spotting the issues.
So was the "text completion" aspect of "if you're asking about a problem here, there must be a solution I can offer" RL-seeming aspect of its generated results. It didn't seem to be truly evaluating the code then deciding so much as saying "yes, I will definitely tell you there are things we can change, here are some that seem plausible."
Imagine if my coworker had asked me the question and I'd just copy-pasted Claude's first crap attempt to them in response? Rude as hell.
One of the largest issues I've experienced is LLMs being too agreeable.
I don't want my theories parroted back to me on why something went wrong. I want to have ideas challenged in a way that forces me to think and hopefully lead me to a new perspective that I otherwise would have missed.
Perhaps a large portion of people do enjoy the agreeableness, but this becomes a problem not only because I think there are larger societal issues that stem from this echo-chamber like environmental but also simply that companies training these models may interpret agreeableness as somehow better and something that should be optimized for.
>> "I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said: <...>".
> Whoa, let me stop you right here buddy, what you're doing here is extremely, horribly rude.
How is it any different from "I read book <X> and it said that..."? Or "Book <X> has the following quote about that:"?
I definitely want to know where people are getting their info. It helps me understand how trustworthy it might be. It's not rude, it's providing proper context.
A book is a credentialed source that can be referenced. A book is also something that not everyone may have on hand, so a pointer can be appreciated. LLMs are not that. If I wanted to know what they said I'd ask them. I'm asking you/the team to understand what THEY think. Unfortunately it's becoming increasingly clear that certain people and coworkers don't actually think at all very often - particularly the ones that just take any question and go throw it off to the planet burning machine.
Because published books, depending on genre, have earned a presumption of being based on reality. And it's easy to reproduce a book lookup, and see if they link to sources. I might have experience with that book and know of its connection with reality.
ChatGPT and similar have not earned a presumption of reality for me, and the same question may get many different answers, and afaik, even if you ask it for sources, they're not necessarily real either.
IMHO, it's rude to use ChatGPT and share it with me as if it's informative; it disrespects my search for truth. It's better that you mention it, so I can disregard the whole thing.
I assume a book is correct or I at least assume to author thought it was correct when it comes to none ideological topics.
But you can’t assume positive intent or any intent from an LLM.
I always test the code, review it for corner cases, remove unnecessary comments, etc just like I would a junior dev.
For facts, I ask it to verify whatever says based on web source. I then might use it to summarize it. But even then I have my own writing style I steer it toward and then edit it.
To me, it's different because having read a book, remembered it, and pulled out the quote means you spent time on it. Pasting a response from ChatGPT means you didn't even bother reading that, understand the output, thought about it to make sure it makes sense, and then resynthesize it.
It mostly means you don't respect the other person's time and it's making them do the vetting. And that's the rude part.
I couldn't disagree more. Its like someone going to Wikipedia to helpfully copy and paste a summary of an issue. Fast and with a good enough level of accuracy.
Generally the AI summaries I see are more topical and accurate than the many other comments in the thread.
The author was thinking "boring and uninteresting" but settled on the word "rude." No, it's not rude. Emailing your co-workers provactive political memes or telling someone to die in a fire is rude. Using ChatGPT to write and being obvious about it marks you as an uninteresting person who may not know what they are talking about.
On the other hand, emailing your prompt and the result you got can be instructive to others learning how to use LLMs (aren't we all?) We may learn effective prompt techniques or decide to switch to that LLM because of the quality of the answer.
I disagree. The most obvious message this telegraphs is "I don't respect you or your argument enough to parse it and articulate a response, why don't you argue with a machine instead". That's rude.
There is an alternative interpretation - "the LLM put it so much better than I ever could, so I copied and pasted that" - but precisely because of the ambiguity, you don't want to be sneaky about it. If you want me to have a look at what the LLM said, make it clear.
A meta-consideration here is that there is just an asymmetry of effort when I'm trying to formulate arguments "manually" and you're using an LLM to debate them. On some level, it might be fair game. On another, it's pretty short-sighted: the end game is that we both use LLMs that endlessly debate each other while drifting off into the absurd.
Subjecting people to such slop is rude. All the "I asked chatbot and it said..." comments are rude because they are excessively boring and uninteresting. But it gets even worse than just boring and uninteresting when presenting chatbot text as something they wrote themselves, which is a form of lying / fraud.
phito|7 months ago
lxgr|7 months ago
Going forward, could you please communicate with me directly? I really don't mind a lack of capitalization or colloquial expressions in internal communications."
SoftTalker|7 months ago
> Would you like me to format this for Outlook or help you post it to a specific channel or distribution list?
pyman|7 months ago
My dad used to say: "Stop sending me emails. It's not the same." I'd tell him, "It's better. "No, it's not. People used to sit down and take the time to write a letter, in their own handwriting. Every letter had its own personality, even its own smell. And you had to walk to the post office to send it. Now sending a letter means nothing."
Change is inevitable. Most people just won't like it.
A lot of people don't realise that Transformers were originally designed to translate text between languages. Which, in a way, is just another way of improving how we communicate ideas. Right now, I see two things people are not happy about when it comes to LLMs:
1. The message you sent doesn't feel personal. It reads like something written by a machine, and I struggle to connect with someone who sends me messages like that.
2. People who don't speak English very well are now sending me perfectly written messages with solid arguments. And honestly, my ego doest’t like it because I used to think I was more intelligent than them. Turns out I wasn't. It was just my perception, based on the fact that I speak the language natively.
Both of these things won't matter anymore in the next two or three years.
eric_cc|7 months ago
shreezus|7 months ago
“Very insightful! Truly a masterclass in turning everyday professional rituals into transformative personal branding opportunities. Your ability to synergize authenticity, thought leadership, and self-congratulation is unparalleled.”
herval|7 months ago
one of my reports started responding to questions with AI Slop. I asked if he was actually writing those sentences (he wasn't), so I gave him that exact feedback - it felt to me like he wasn't even listening, when he clearly jut copy-pasted clearly AI responses. Thankfully he stopped doing it.
Of course as models get better at writing, it'll be harder and harder to tell. IMO the people who stand to lose the most are the AI sloppers, in that case - like in the South Park episode, as they'll get lost in commitments and agreements they didn't even know they made.
anal_reactor|7 months ago
pityJuke|7 months ago
benatkin|7 months ago
moomoo11|7 months ago
Please be honest. If it’s slop or they have incorrect information in the message, then my bad, stop reading here. Otherwise…
I really hope people like this with holier than thou attitude get filtered out. Fast.
People who don’t adapt to use new tools are some of the worst people to work around.
vouaobrasil|7 months ago
To me, someone pasting in an AI answer says: I don't care about any of that. Yeah, not a person I want to interact with.
gharper|7 months ago
unknown|7 months ago
[deleted]
hks0|7 months ago
My current day to day problem is that, the PRs don't come with that disclaimer; The authors won't even admit if asked directly. Yet I know my comments on the PR will be fed to the cursor so it makes more crappy edits, and I'll be expecting an entirely different PR in 10 minutes to review from scratch without even addressing the main concern. I wish I could at least talk to the AI directly.
(If you're wondering, it's unfortunately not in my power right now to ignore or close the PRs).
lukevp|7 months ago
Another perspective I’ve found to resonate with people is to remind them — if you’re not reviewing the code or passing it through any type of human reasoning to determine its fit to solving the business problem - what value are you adding at all? If you just copy pasta through AI, you might as well not even be in the loop, because it’d be faster for me to do it directly, and have the context of the prompts as well.
This is a step change in our industry and an opportunity to mentor people who are misusing it. If they don’t take it, there are plenty of people who will. I have a feeling that AI will actually separate the wheat from the chaff, because right now, people can hide a lack of understanding and effort because the output speed is so low for everyone. Once those who have no issue with applying critical thinking and debugging to the problem and work well with the business start to leverage AI, it’ll become very obvious who’s left behind.
distantprovince|7 months ago
I haven't personally been in this position, but when I think about it, looping all your reviews through the cursor would reduce your perceived competence, wouldn't it? Is giving them a negative performance review an option?
lxgr|7 months ago
GeoAtreides|7 months ago
craftkiller|7 months ago
marliechiller|7 months ago
Such a great point and one which I hadn't considered. With LLMs, we've flipped this equation, and it's having all sorts of weird consequences. Most obviously for me is how much more time I'm spending on code reviews. Its massively increased the importance of making the PR as digestible as possible for the reviewer, as now both author and reviewer are much closer to equal understanding of the changes compared to if the author had written the PR solely by themselves. Who knows what other corollaries there are to this reversal of reading vs writing
lxgr|7 months ago
Humanity has survived and adapted, and all in all, I'm glad to live in a world with photography in it.
That said, part of that adaptation will probably involve the evolution of a strong stigma against undeclared and poorly verified/curated AI-generated content.
gigatree|7 months ago
accrual|7 months ago
The former is like "hey, I had this experience, here's what it was about, what I learned and how it affected me" which is a very human experience and totally valid to share. The latter is like "I created some input, here's the output, now I want you reflect and/or act on it".
For example I've used Claude and ChatGPT to reflect and chat about life experiences and left feeling like I gained something, and sometimes I'll talk to my friends or SO about it. But I'd never share the transcript unless they asked for it.
kelseyfrog|7 months ago
It feels really interesting to the person who experienced it, not so much to the listener. Sometimes it can be fun to share because it gives you a glimmer of insight into how someone else's mind works, but the actual content is never really the point.
If anything they share the same hallucinatory quality - ie: hallucinations don't have essential content, which is kind of the point of communication.
sfink|7 months ago
With ChatGPT, it's the output of the pickled brains of millions of past internet users, staring at the prompt from your brain and free-associating. Not quite the same thing!
toast0|7 months ago
AceLewis|7 months ago
I spent a long time responding to each pro and con assuming they got this list from somewhere or another companies promotional material. Every point was wrong in different ways, not understanding. I was giving detailed responses to each point explaining how they are wrong. Initially I thought the list was obtained from someone in marketing who did not understand, after a while I thought maybe this was AI and asked… they told me they just asked the pros and cons of the product/program to ChatGPT and was asking me to verify it it was correct or not before communicating to customers.
If they had just asked me the pros and cons I could have responded in a much shorter amount of time. ChatGPT basically DOSed me because the time taken to produce the text was nothing compared to the time it took me to respond.
dlevine|7 months ago
That is not an excuse for it being poorly done or unvetted (which I think is the crux of the point), but it’s important to state any sources used.
If i don’t want to receive AI generated content, i can use the attribution to filter it out.
varjag|7 months ago
ivanjermakov|7 months ago
thunky|7 months ago
smithbits|7 months ago
oldge|7 months ago
MrGilbert|7 months ago
conartist6|7 months ago
lvl155|7 months ago
johnnyanmac|7 months ago
The issue is that we both know 99% of output are not the result of this. AI is used to cut corners, not to cross your T's and dot your I's. It's similar to how having the answer banks for a textbook is a great tool to self-correct and reinforce correct learning. In reality these banks aren't sold publicly because most students will use it to cheat.
And I'm not even saying this in a shameful way per se; high schoolers are under so much pressure, used to be given hours of homework on top of 7+ hours of instruction, and in some regards the content is barely applicable to long term goals past keeping their GPA up. The temptation to cheat is enormous at that stage.
----
Not so much for 30 year old me who wants to refresh themselves on calculus concepts for an interview. There also really shouldn't be any huge pressure to "cheat" your co-workers either (there sometimes is, though).
GPerson|7 months ago
adamtaylor_13|7 months ago
z3c0|7 months ago
Al-Khwarizmi|7 months ago
deadbabe|7 months ago
scarface_74|7 months ago
Hell I would rather just read their reply in Spanish and if they need to write it out really fast without struggling trying to translate it and I use my own B1 level Spanish comprehension than read AI generated slop.
chang1|7 months ago
Then I get even more annoyed when they decide to actually use their own prompt, and then read back to me the answer.
I would much prefer the answer "I don't know".
jerlam|7 months ago
Isamu|7 months ago
parasti|7 months ago
monkeydust|7 months ago
accrual|7 months ago
creatonez|7 months ago
If LLMs can be fixed to the point where they are as reliable as 2005-2010 Google, maybe you can start blindly pasting output or telling people to "just chatgpt it", and it won't be so useless for the victim anymore. But I'm not convinced the hallucination problem and inability to properly cite sources will be solved anytime soon, given how non-deterministic LLMs are. And it appears it's just creating a brand new SEO spam issue, with Gemini results at the top of the page based on the contents of spammy results.
KronisLV|7 months ago
I think it all goes to crap when there is some economic incentive: e.g. blogspam that is profitable thanks to ads and anyone that stumbles upon it, alongside being able to generate large amounts of coherent sounding crap quickly.
I have seen quite a few sites like that in the first pages of both Google and DuckDuckGo which feels almost offensive. At the same time, posts that promise something and then don't go through with it are similarly bad, regardless of AI generated or not.
For example, recently I needed to look up how vLLM compares with Ollama (yes, for running the very same abominable intelligence models, albeit for more subjectively useful reasons) because Qwen3-30B-A3B and Devstral-24B both run pretty badly on Nvidia L4 cards with Ollama, which feels disappointing given their price tags and relatively small sizes of those models.
Yet pretty much all of the comparisons I found just regurgitated high level overviews of the technologies, like 5-10 sites that felt almost identical and could have been copy pasted from one another. Not a single one of those had a table of various models and their tokens/s on a given bit of hardware, for both Ollama and vLLM.
Back in the day when nerds got passionate about Apache2 vs Nginx, you'd see comparisons with stats and graphs and even though I wouldn't take all of those at face value (since with Apache2 you should turn off .htaccess and also tweak the MPM settings for more reasonable performance), at least there would sometimes be a Git repo.
unyttigfjelltol|7 months ago
If you're offered an AI output it should be taken as one of two situations: (a) the person adopts the output, and maybe put a fair amount of effort into interacting with the LLM to get it just right, but can't honestly claim ownership (because who can), or (b) the output is outside their domain of expertise and functioning as a toehold or thumbnail in some esoteric topic that no single resource they know can, and probably the point is so specific that such a resource doesn't exist.
The tenor of the article makes me confused about what people have been doing, specifically , with ChatGPT that so alienated the author. I guess the point is there are some topics LLMs are fundamentally incompetent to perform? Maybe its more the perception that the LLM is being treated as an oracle than a tool for discovery?
skeledrew|7 months ago
Just the other day I witnessed in a chat someone commenting that another (who previously sent an AI summary of something) had sent a "block of text" which they wouldn't read because it was too much, then went to read it when they were told it was from Quora, not generated. It was a wild moment for me, and I said as much.
johnnyanmac|7 months ago
Now let's really asks ourselves how this works out in reality. Cut corners. People using LLM's are not using it to enhance their conversation; they are using it to get it over with.
It also doesn't help that yes, AI generated text tends to be overly verbose. Saying a lot of nothing. There are times where that formality is needed, but not in some casual work conversations. Just get to the point.
intended|7 months ago
jmugan|7 months ago
guywithahat|7 months ago
tlonny|7 months ago
Isaac, if you're reading this - stop sending me PDFs generated by Perplexity!
jmugan|7 months ago
lxgr|7 months ago
Yet today, we both cringe at forgettable food Instagrams and marvel at the World Press Photo of the Year.
I do fully agree with the conclusions on etiquette. Just like it's rude to try to pass a line-traced photo as a freehand drawing, decompressing very little information into a wall of text without a disclaimer is rude.
thomashabets2|7 months ago
I stopped there and replied that if you don't care enough to test if it works, then clearly you don't actually want the feature, and closed the ticket.
I have gotten other PRs that are more in the form of "hey I don't know what I'm doing. I used GPT but and it seems to work but I don't understand this part". I'm happy to help point in the right direction for those. Because an least they're trying. And seem like this is part of their learning.
... Or they just asked jippity to make it seem that way.
oncallthrow|7 months ago
dcreater|7 months ago
vouaobrasil|7 months ago
pixl97|7 months ago
When I got squggily written cursive letters from my grandma I could be pretty sure those were her words though up by herself, for the effort to accurately reproduce the consistent mess she made would have been great. But the moment we moved to the typewriter and then other digital means uniformly printed out on paper or screens you've really just assumed that it was written by the human you were expecting.
Furthermore, the vast majority of communications done in business long before now were not done by 'people' per say. They were done by processes. In the vast majority of business email that I type out there is a large amount of process that would not occur if I were talking to a friend. Moreso this communication is facilitative to some other end goal. If the entire process that existed could be automated away humanity would be better off as some mostly useless work would be eliminated.
Do you know why people are so willing to use AI to communicate with each other? Because at the end of the day they don't give two shits about communicating with you. It's an end goal of receiving a paycheck. There is no passion, no deep interest, no entertainment for them in doing so. It's a process demanded of them because of how we integrate Moloch into our modern lives.
achierius|7 months ago
conradludgate|7 months ago
I don't care what chatgpt or deepseek thinks about the proposal. I care what _you_ think about it - that's why I'm sending it to you.
codeulike|7 months ago
jancsika|7 months ago
How is this more plausible than the scrambler's own lack of knowledge of potential specifications for these messages?
In any case, there's obviously more explanations than the "coded nonsense" hypothesis.
lukebechtel|7 months ago
accrual|7 months ago
Quote is from Mark Twain and perfectly encapsulates the sentiment. Writing something intended for another person to read was previously an effort. Some people were good at it, some were less good. But now, everyone can generate some median-level effort.
QuantumGood|7 months ago
zer00eyz|7 months ago
Cause all an LLM is, is a reflection of its input.
Garbage in garbage out.
If we're going to have this rule about AI, maybe we should have it about... everything. From your mom's last Facebook post, to what is said by influencers to this post...
Say less. Do more.
majormajor|7 months ago
You can have a very thoughtful LLM prompt and get a garbage response if the model fails to generate a solid, sound answer to your prompt. Hard questions with verifiable but obscure answers, for instance, where it generates fake citations.
You can have a garbage prompt and get not-garbage output if you are asking in a well-understood area with a well-understood problem.
And the current generation of company-provided LLMs are VERY highly trained to make the answer look non-garbage in all cases, increasing the cognitive load on you to figure out.
echelon|7 months ago
Now that's no longer the case and there are lazy or unthoughtful people that simply pass along AI outputs, raw and completely unprocessed, as cognitive work for other human beings to deal with.
z3c0|7 months ago
bethekidyouwant|7 months ago
esafak|7 months ago
accrual|7 months ago
desolate_muffin|7 months ago
AI responses seem to have very low information density by default, so for me the irritation is threefold—it requires very little mental effort for the sender (i.e., I often read responses that don't feel sufficiently considered); it is often poorly validated by the sender; and it is disrespectful to the reader's time.
Like some of the other commenters, I am also not in a position to change this at work, but I am disheartened by how some of my fellow engineers have taken to putting up low effort PRs with errors, as well as unreasonably long design docs. My entire company seems to have bought into the whole "AI-first company" thing without actually validating if the outputs are worth the squeeze. Maybe sometimes they are, but I get a sense that the path of least resistance tends toward accepting lower quality code and communication.
stego-tech|7 months ago
peteforde|7 months ago
ram_rar|7 months ago
Sure, it can be frustrating that they don’t adapt to a user’s personal style. But for those of us who haven’t fully developed that stylistic sense (which is common among non-native speakers), it’s still a huge leap forward.
jtwoodhouse|7 months ago
627467|7 months ago
(Present a solution/output proposal to team)
> Did you ask chatgpt?
ivape|7 months ago
a) Quantity > Quality if it prints $$$.
or
b) Quality > Quantity if it feels like the right thing to do.
Witnessing type A at scale is a first-class ticket into misanthropy.
devenson|7 months ago
ninetyninenine|7 months ago
So I apologized and began actually using LLMs while making sure the prompt included style guides and rules to avoid the tell tale signs of AI. Then some of these geniuses thanked me for being more genuine in my response.
A lot of this stuff is delusional. You only find it rude because you’re aware it’s written by AI. It’s the awareness itself that triggers it. In reality you can’t tell the difference.
This post, for example.
card_zero|7 months ago
And then "echoborgs": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoborg
On the whole it's considered bad to mislead people. If my love letter to you is in fact a pre-written form, "my darling [insert name here]", and you suspect, but your suspicion is just baseless paranoia and a lucky guess, I suppose you're being delusional and I'm not being rude. But I'm still doing something wrong. Even if you don't suspect, and I call off the scam, I was still messing with you.
But the definition of being "misleading" is tricky, because we have personas and need them in order to communicate, which in any context at all is a kind of honest, sincere play-acting.
scarface_74|7 months ago
I too use an LLM to help me get rid of generic filler and I do have my own style of technical writing and editing. You would never know I use an LLM.
unknown|7 months ago
[deleted]
nyclsrmn|7 months ago
> "I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said: <...>". ... > "I vibe-coded this pull request in just 15 minutes. Please review"
This is even nice. You have outlined here an actual warning. Usually there is none.
When you get this type of request you are pretty much debugging AI code on the spot without any additional context.
You can just see when text/code is AI generated or not. No matter text or code. No tools needed.
JoshTriplett|7 months ago
"I hand-typed this close message in just 15 seconds. Please refrain."
geor9e|7 months ago
linotype|7 months ago
AllegedAlec|7 months ago
What's even more infuriating is that he won't take "I've checked and that submenu doesn't exist" for an answer and insists to check again. Had to step away for a fag a few times in fear of putting his face through the desk.
tbatchelli|7 months ago
Last time someone did this to me I sent them a few other answers by the same LLM to the same prompt, all different, with no commentary.
Keyframe|7 months ago
Bluestein|7 months ago
majormajor|7 months ago
I wonder how long it will be before LLM-text trademarks become seen as a sign of bad writing or laziness instead? And then maybe we'll have an arms race of stylistic changes.
---
Completely agree with the author:
Earlier this week I asked Claude to summarize a bunch of code files since I was looking for a bug. It wrote paragraphs and had 3 suggestions. But when I read it, I realized it was mostly super generic and vague. The conditions that would be required to trigger the bug in those ways couldn't actually exist, but it put a lot of words around the ideas. I took longer to notice that they were incorrect suggestions as a result.
I told it "this won't happen those ways [because blah blah blah]" and it gave me the "you are correct!" compliment-dance and tried again. One new suggestion and a claimed reason about how one of its original suggestions might be right. The new suggestion seemed promising, but I wasn't entirely convinced. Tried again. It went back to the first three suggestions - the "here's why that won't happen" was still in the context window, but it hit some limit of its model. Like it was trying to reconcile being reinforcement-learning'd into "generate something that looks like a helpful answer" with "here is information in the context window saying the text I want to generate is wrong" and failing. We got into a loop.
It was a rare bug so we'll see if the useful-seeming suggestion was right or not but I don't know yet. Added some logging around it and some other stuff too.
The counterfactuals are hard to evaluate:
* would I have identified that potential change quicker without asking it? Or at all?
* would I have identified something else that it didn't point out?
* what if I hadn't noticed the problems with some other suggestions and spent a bunch of time chasing them?
The words:information ratio was a big problem in spotting the issues.
So was the "text completion" aspect of "if you're asking about a problem here, there must be a solution I can offer" RL-seeming aspect of its generated results. It didn't seem to be truly evaluating the code then deciding so much as saying "yes, I will definitely tell you there are things we can change, here are some that seem plausible."
Imagine if my coworker had asked me the question and I'd just copy-pasted Claude's first crap attempt to them in response? Rude as hell.
drewvlaz|7 months ago
I don't want my theories parroted back to me on why something went wrong. I want to have ideas challenged in a way that forces me to think and hopefully lead me to a new perspective that I otherwise would have missed.
Perhaps a large portion of people do enjoy the agreeableness, but this becomes a problem not only because I think there are larger societal issues that stem from this echo-chamber like environmental but also simply that companies training these models may interpret agreeableness as somehow better and something that should be optimized for.
idkfasayer|7 months ago
[deleted]
reelchucknorris|7 months ago
[deleted]
icheyne|7 months ago
[deleted]
crazygringo|7 months ago
> Whoa, let me stop you right here buddy, what you're doing here is extremely, horribly rude.
How is it any different from "I read book <X> and it said that..."? Or "Book <X> has the following quote about that:"?
I definitely want to know where people are getting their info. It helps me understand how trustworthy it might be. It's not rude, it's providing proper context.
Arainach|7 months ago
toast0|7 months ago
ChatGPT and similar have not earned a presumption of reality for me, and the same question may get many different answers, and afaik, even if you ask it for sources, they're not necessarily real either.
IMHO, it's rude to use ChatGPT and share it with me as if it's informative; it disrespects my search for truth. It's better that you mention it, so I can disregard the whole thing.
scarface_74|7 months ago
But you can’t assume positive intent or any intent from an LLM.
I always test the code, review it for corner cases, remove unnecessary comments, etc just like I would a junior dev.
For facts, I ask it to verify whatever says based on web source. I then might use it to summarize it. But even then I have my own writing style I steer it toward and then edit it.
mook|7 months ago
It mostly means you don't respect the other person's time and it's making them do the vetting. And that's the rude part.
cm2012|7 months ago
Generally the AI summaries I see are more topical and accurate than the many other comments in the thread.
lysace|7 months ago
I don't see any problem sharing a human-reviewed LLM output.
(I also figure that human review may not be that necessary in a few years.)
Velorivox|7 months ago
[0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png
labrador|7 months ago
On the other hand, emailing your prompt and the result you got can be instructive to others learning how to use LLMs (aren't we all?) We may learn effective prompt techniques or decide to switch to that LLM because of the quality of the answer.
recipe19|7 months ago
There is an alternative interpretation - "the LLM put it so much better than I ever could, so I copied and pasted that" - but precisely because of the ambiguity, you don't want to be sneaky about it. If you want me to have a look at what the LLM said, make it clear.
A meta-consideration here is that there is just an asymmetry of effort when I'm trying to formulate arguments "manually" and you're using an LLM to debate them. On some level, it might be fair game. On another, it's pretty short-sighted: the end game is that we both use LLMs that endlessly debate each other while drifting off into the absurd.
mkehrt|7 months ago
righthand|7 months ago
No in fact I disabled my TabNine Llm until I can either train my own similar model and run everything locally or not at all.
Furthermore the whole selling point has been that anyone can use them _without needing to learn anything_.
lupusreal|7 months ago
Subjecting people to such slop is rude. All the "I asked chatbot and it said..." comments are rude because they are excessively boring and uninteresting. But it gets even worse than just boring and uninteresting when presenting chatbot text as something they wrote themselves, which is a form of lying / fraud.
grey-area|7 months ago