[tpxl]

I think they should be banned, if there isnt a contribution besides what the llm answered. It's akin to 'I googled this', which is uninteresting.

[mattkrause]

I do find it useful in discussions of LLMs themselves. (Gemini did this; Claude did it too but it used to get tripped up like that).

I do wish people wouldn’t do it when it doesn’t add to the conversation but I would advocate for collective embarrassment over a ham-fisted regex.

[MBCook]

That provides value as you’re comparing (and hopefully analyzing) output. It’s totally on topic.

In a discussion of RISC v5 and if it can beat ARM someone just posting “ChatGPT says X” adds absolutely nothing to the discussion but noise.

[autoexec]

It's always fun when people point out an LLMs insane responses to simple questions that shatter the illusion of them having any intelligence, but besides just giving us a good laugh when AI has a meltdown failing to produce a seahorse emoji, there are other times it might be valuable to discuss how they respond, such as when those responses might be dangerous, censored, or clearly being filled with advertising/bias

[dormento]

IMHO its far worse than "I googled this". Googling at least requires a modicum of understanding. Pasting slop usually means that the person couldn't be bothered to filter out garbage, but wants to look smart anyway.

[tptacek]

They are already banned.

[venturecruelty]

Weird that I keep seeing them then.

[Ekaros]

I think "I googled this" can be valid and helpful contribution. For example looking up some statistic or fact or an year. If that is also verified and sanity checked.

[sejje]

Yes, while citing an LLM in the same way is probably not as useful.

"I googled this" is only helpful when the statistic or fact they looked up was correct and well-sourced. When it's a reddit comment, you derail into a new argument about strength of sources.

The LLM skips a step, and gets you right to the "unusable source" argument.

[TulliusCicero]

"I googled this" usually means actually going into a page and seeing what it says, not just copy-pasting the search results page itself, which is the equivalent here.

[skywhopper]

In that case, the correct post here would be to say “here’s the stat” and cite the actual source (not “I googled it”), and then add some additional commentary.

[zby]

The contribution is the prompt.