Use AI to make things clearer, not longer. Let it sharpen your thinking, not replace it.
What bullshit is this? AI doesn’t sharpen anyone’s thinking. It replaces thinking with misinformation
It’s the cope variety of bullshit, some lazy fuck’s justification for how they’re using AI responsibly in a way that allows them to continue to rot their brain while they have the satisfaction of judging others.
You’re absolutely right! And honestly? It’s not just infuriating — it’s detrimental to our society’s education.
Would you like me to write a succinct response instead of a wall of text?
—
Lol I assure you, I wrote it all myself. I intentionally used the em dash for this purpose.
Sure you did…
ChatGPT!!!
I use them all thr time. Alt + 0150 or 0151 for en-dash or em-dash respectively on Windows. On mobile, it’s long-press on the -, on Linux (German keyboard layout) Alt Gr (+ Shift) + -
One of the things I hate most about this ai shit is that now people assume any use of an em dash is ai. I’ve been using them longer than the damn robot! I just like to use a variety of punctuation and now I have to be aware that if I don’t change my own writing style then some people will assume I’ve used ai
I just do a double dash. Some platforms auto convert it, some don’t. I’m a writer and the program I use does the conversion so it’s just muscle memory at this point.
😡
Indubitably
Sorry, let me restart…repeats the entire response again for no fucking reason
We gotta start using ai;dr more.
One idea I read is that showing others LLM output should be considered rude. If folks find the tools useful, by all means use them, but do others the service of translating the output back into verified, truthful, human signal first.
It’s like asking a person for their opinion, only to have them google in front of you and then read the first result out in a boring monotone voice.
It’s obvious they don’t respect you enough to accept giving just “i think x”/" i assume x "/“i dont know”.
Yes, exactly. With Search, one evaluates a source or two, weighs veracity, reconsiders the current problem given the new information, then comes to a conclusion. All that’s out the window with LLMs. Just trust the output without any critical thought. Even worse, just paste the output to a friend or coworker like it’s authoritative.
Here’s a quick story: I have one colleague who ran some source code through an LLM to summarize what it was doing. Then they copied the output, pasted it into a document, then claim they “wrote” it and wondered where we could store this document for future reference 🗑️
Sadly i have to do some projects with other students at university, and some of them just let LLMs do their work for them.
The amount of times i need to go “you are asking me to fix something that doesn’t exist” or “this is literally just wrong” is driving me insane.
No. It’s still rude. If I want to read an AI response, I can generate crap myself. Who gave you the right to throw crap at me?
If folks find the tools useful, by all means stop.
God, I hate this so much. I used to frequently ask the senior engineer on my team for input on whatever I was working on, but he started just replying with copy-pasted Gemini responses.
Now I don’t really ask him for input anymore.
Sounds like it’s working as intended for him then.
Maybe, but I don’t think his intent is to shut me up. I think he’s just a true believer. I think he’s honestly trying to be helpful with it.
If he’s actually trying to be helpful, I think it’s worth attempting a calm, earnest conversation about it with him explaining how this choice of his is a lost resource to you and how much you value his input over that of an algorithm.
It still may not work, but someone thinking they’re doing the right thing is typically easier to persuade over someone who is maliciously trying to push you away.
Aw, that sucks to lose useful input and collaboration like that. I’m sorry. Hopefully they come back around to being a more human dev again.
I was afraid you were going to end by offering to give them a cookie recipe.
At first I ignored that behavior, but now I respond asking them to refrain, it’s ok to tell me they don’t know or to tell me a hint they might know even if they don’t know for sure, but I have access to the same LLMs they have and I don’t need them to help with that. I tell them to just send me what they would have sent to the prompt, and if I need the LLM, I’ll do it.
It’s especially bad when they have zero idea and try to fake it with LLM.
It’s kinda bananas that people think that’s even ok… why even ask you? We all have access to LLMs, if I wanted an AI response I’d just talk to an AI. It’s not like boomers using voice to text or something, it’s more akin to setting up an out-of-office reply.
A lot of people at my job started having bots auto post summaries to human channels. It’s a waft of AI garbage that’s hard to parse and people get pissy when you don’t read the whole thing.
Like if you fucking care hand type it yourself instead of vomiting garbage at me.
I get pissy when the AI tries to summerize my emails or messages when I’m driving. I just want it to parrot what my friends in the group chat have said but it keeps trying to paraphrase and I honestly don’t get what is so fucking hard about letting the phone just read the god damn words that my friends wrote!
To be fair, before GenAI a lot of them managed to manually vomit a lot of useless garbage and I ignored them then too… Of course, now they are more empowered to waste my time than before…
theres people that actually do this?
Oh absolutely, and on all sorts of communication.
I sat befuddled at what the hell I was reading when I went to read a reply to an email I had fired off at the end of the day and didn’t check until next morning. Turned out he wanted to be ‘cute’ and so he had AI slop up his out of office reply. So instead of “Out of office, will be back on MM/DD” I had read two paragraphs of bizarre fan fiction looking junk apparently intended to make his three day weekend sound like some fantasy epic.
Someone asked me to help with something and I said sure, and then within they minute, they pasted a wall of text saying “this is what ChatGPT had to say, so it should help you get going”. It didn’t work for them, so why they thought I would both find it useful and couldn’t have asked an LLM myself, no idea. It was totally wrong and that’s why they screwed it up harder, but still thought the AI must have been right.
I’ve received multiple bug reports and pull requests with confusing long winded essays that bothered to bring up details that were both not relevant and yet also incorrect.
Had this coworker who wrote 1-liner “bug reports”. When I told him I need more info where it happens, what happens and what the expected result should be he started to use AI to “improve” his reports. The ai slop just added more filler words and obvious statements, but nothing useful that would help me to reproduce the issue, because it did not know the software, application or code behind it.
Lol go open any AI related community on reddit and half the replies are chatgpt copy paste that’s full of fluff and filler.
Which is even funnier because I’ve seen actual AI bots give better responses which makes me wonder why those users bother to generate an answer at all.
LinkedIn is the definition of this.
It’s probably more common in some communities than others. I hang out in a lot of AI spaces and many newcomers think it’s acceptable to slop-post there just because of the topic of the community.
Plenty
I have had conversation with people who when can’t explain something difficult start sending ai messages to protect their ego. It is so easily visible, lol
Especially obnoxious when they ask for your help in the first place and keep pestering you with GenAI bullshit saying they are ‘helping’ you figure out how to do whatever it is they couldn’t figure out with GenAI help in the first place…
I, umm, I sometimes write essays in slack/matrix
I frequent a chatroom (I like vintage stuff) and there’s a few users there that use ai to chat for them 90% of the time. It’s very obvious and everyone knows it’s ai.
irc?
ngl, I do use AI to write some messages, BUT! It’s just to spell check. Becuase for some reason every other spell check engine both online and locally has been broken somehow and my grammer is shitty. I like to ramble and over explain and when I’m machine gunning words onto the screen I know I’m missing some embarrasing errors.
Trust me. Using AI will make you look way worse. It definitely won’t help you improve your grammar or communication skills.
You use AI for spellcheck?
The question is, if a normal websearch is more trustworth as one made by an AI, if the user don’t contrast the results? In the web exist more BS and SEO crap than an AI can produce, if you trust the first find without common sense. AI can help in researches in a huge amount of data and documents, but it can’t substitute your own effort and intelligence.
Really though, I find it ironic as fuck to write an essay about how you shouldn’t post essays in inappropriate places.
Huh? How do you get from “generated slop littering is bad” to “all moderately long pieces of writing are bad”?
I didn’t. The thesis is AI essays in inappropriate medium is bad. And it’s an essay.
A human-written essay in a medium that is appropriate.
If you don’t understand the difference, you may be suffering from effects from LLM overusage.
In an inappropriate medium?
No, I don’t believe I said that either. Are there any other things I didn’t say you wanted to go over?
If you are saying it’s ironic for the author to do the same thing they are criticizing, then yes, you’re saying that. Otherwise, there’s little to nothing similar about them, hence my original comment.
I’m saying the author is writing an essay for a concept that can easily be understood in a sentence, yes. And I find it ironic. Not bad, just funny. And somehow this offends people.
It’s a lost cause on here, as soon as you made a comment that wasn’t immediately and clearly anti-AI you’re going to get dogpiled with bad faith arguments and downvotes.
The irony of people commenting in a post promoting human writing while also failing to understand basic concepts of writing, such as irony.
I assume you went to the “ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife”* school of irony?
Irony typically requires the things to be equivalent. AI writing is not equivalent to human writing, a private website is not slack and a comment about the detriments of AI is not equivalent to a work chat. The only common element would be essays, and they weren’t the subject of criticism.
And even then, the page isn’t nearly the same style as the essays they’re complaining about.
Maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue? Should probably ask some LLM to pick out the core points, maybe it’ll do a better job.
–
*Alanis Morissette, Ironic, a song that contains as many good examples of irony as bad ones
It’s an anti-essay essay, it was obvious that they were making a surface level joke if you’re not looking for reasons to be outraged.
It should have been very clear to you what they meant, since the person clarified what they meant 8 hours before your comment and that comment was, literally, 2 comments under mine.
It is hypocritical, bordering on ironic, to condescend about reading comprehension while ignoring the very thread you are participating in.
I mean can the pro-AI comments at least make sense?
I haven’t seen any, this was a comment thread about irony people are somehow seeing pro-AI in it for reasons.
People not finding someone writing an essay in response to being annoyed at people sending them irrelevant essays funny is acceptable enough to me. I don’t care if people don’t share my humor. The absolute wall of defensive text I’ve received in response is also funny, in a discussion about an essay about the value of brevity. And so is the idea that any of this is pro AI while people complain I have a reading comprehension issue. I can also assure you the irony of how much I’ve typed is also not lost on me. Frankly this thread is about to produce a singularity of irony.
Oh there’s plenty of funny stuff going on and it’s not like the downvotes matter. I mean that poster using Socratic irony to tell me why I found something ironically funny was wrong was amusing in itself if incredibly tedious.
It’s irony all the way down
That website contains two examples and five short paragraphs. I think this is reasonable
I don’t consider it unreasonable, it’s just a funny juxtaposition because the format resembles AI output.
Its very direct in its message
Yes, it’s direct structured writing supported by examples. I’m not saying it’s a bad essay, it’s just a funny thing to read an essay about how reading AI essays wastes the readers time.
Where do you think AI got its format from?
I’m aware.
Well, for one, it seems to be an appropriate place. They speak of essays out of nowhere in slack, this isn’t slack, it’s a site. Besides, the target audience (people sending slop grenades) obviously value verbosity as a virtue in and of itself, so it may help them.
For another, LLM essays are their own annoying beast. The material contributed by the human was contained in a terse prompt. In a slack, that’s everything I wanted, and the LLM just adds fluff and buries the meat in verbosity. Even “I don’t know” is much more valuable than wasting my time with an LLM essay hemming and hawing without any more clarity than we started.
I’m not declaring it exactly equivalent or anything, and what you said I find valid. The irony lies in what you said, that’s all. It’s a concept that can easily be explained in a sentence and is suggested to be posted wherever someone else posts an inappropriate AI essay. It’s just funny in the common situational ironic sense to me. People arguing that I shouldn’t find it ironically funny is bizarre to me. But also funny for other reasons.
