[VariousPrograms]

I know this is nothing new, but it's insane that we need policies like "When talking to us you have to use human words, not copy pasted LLM output" and "You must understand the code you're committing."

When I was young, I used to think I'd be open minded to changing times and never be curmudgeonly, but I get into one "conversation" where someone responds with ChatGPT, and I am officially a curmudgeon.

[cedmans]

Brazen usage of LLM output is a disrespect to the target audience to begin with. If I'm being expected to employ the mental capital needed to understand the context and content of your writings, I at the very least expect that you did the same when actually authoring it.

[solid_fuel]

It also feels like using one of those cereal encoder wheels, to some degree. If someone sends me 10 paragraphs of output from chatGPT, and they only wrote a sentence to prompt it, then the output is really just a re-encoding of the information in the original prompt.

Quite literally - if they sent me the text of the prompt I could obtain the same output, so the output is just a more verbose way of stating the prompt.

I find it really disrespectful to talk to people through an LLM like that.

[blks]

Exactly the same argument can and should be applied to generated code

[heavyset_go]

I hope it becomes as accepted as it is to stick cameras in random people's faces: generally seen as rude, and bad actors who do it anyway are desperate and considered as such.

I am capable of copying and pasting shit into an LLM, do not give me its output and don't insult me by pretending the output is your own work.

[peyton]

They’ll self-sort pretty quickly. The ChatGPT people will talk to the ChatGPT people and be happy about it. I think it’ll work out.

[DoctorOW]

The root of the issue is "ChatGPT people" are using artificial intelligence to replace... intelligence. Nobody, not even ChatGPT people, wants to actually read that drivel.