You must log in or register to comment.
This comes obvious to me, but if I wanted to ask an LLM I would’ve done it myself
I never have this problem of people giving me AI responses to my questions.
What I do have a problem with is people who do this:
Hey
I used to contract with a company where it was almost ubiquitous for someone to start a text-based conversation with the entire message: “Hey…” — ellipses and everything. It was bad enough that other members of my company that were contracted to the same contract would jokingly add ellipses to random things when messaging each other.
Odd…
…?
It has been an interesting experience telling people who only say hello that they’re being rude.
I think autism bit me in the ass again 😭
Just ignore them. They will catch on eventually.
Are you talking about people just saying “hi” or the meta-behavior of people using nohello.net in their Teams/Slack status? Because the latter is more annoying to me
Noted
I’ll wait for the “Fuck you for using AI you lazy twat” website.
Scroll to the bottom, there’s a link to a spicier phrasing.
Also, quote from there:
You’re just making someone lose respect for you in real time, in a way that’s hard to walk back.
I feel that, I have lost respect for people that way and don’t want to be friends anymore :(
Don’t copy and paste. Type it out with rage!
Send this to the people in your life, you know who
if someone pastes text from llm, i wont even read it.
Personally “I checked with Claude” invalidates anything you just said, even if it was properly researched and legitimately correct. As soon as you invoke the slopbots I lose any regard for your answer.
You are so right.
I checked with Claude
It’s basically the “appeal to authority” fallacy only worse because Claude is neither an authority nor a provider of hard info.
Nor appealing!
Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?
Because we don’t see all that research, we just see a comment where you said you asked the hallucination machine, so now, if I want to use anything you said, I have to go duplicate all that research before I can trust it.
So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.
Which is valid. But is not what you said.
More accurately, if you claim you used Claude, I will assume absolutely anything produced with it has a high chance of being rife with errors. If you provided citations for every last detail and then said Claude put it together, I wouldn’t trust it until I’ve personally verified the sources because not only will it hallucinate details, it’ll hallucinate sources. Anything produced with it is inherently untrustworthy.
That’s true regardless of the sources someone used.
Well I like to at least allude to my source if it’s not common knowledge
Yeah, but the only source explicitly provided in this hypothetical is the hallucination machine.
Because upvotes
You guys are the worst. I’m now convinced all of you complaining have nothing going on. Every industry is using this shit. I was just watching this video of a big musician YouTuber using a vibe coded app that lets you create guitar tones by what you tell it. Kojima did an ad with Prada using it. You can be the curmudgeon all you fucking want but go do it to the big guys and quit fighting this bullshit culture war against low hanging fruit. You miserable fucks.
Ironically this page seems to be entirely made of slop, the whole text reeks of claudisms, as opposed to https://noslopgrenade.com/
I was just coming to comment this. Slop telling us not to paste slop. How nice.
What really seals it is the ‘angry’ version, which is just the same message again but with different formatting. No human would label that as “the angry version” without the inclusion of at least one “fucking”.
It says “but for fucks sake” in the angry version though.
Had the same feeling, there are no traces of the original text but there is https://github.com/khaosdoctor/dontquotetheai/commit/7f42249e3734068306775cd51bbe1bf02bf372e6
Em dashes being associated with AI is a disservice to them; in many cases they’re a far more suitable use of punctuation in interrupting a sentence than parentheses.
In this instance, however, the em dashes between the first and second parts of sentences would be better replaced with semicolons than commas, in my opinion.
Yea, if it would have been only the em dashes, I would not have shared it but it was also committed by Claude which heightens the possibility of the text also being generated I think.
They’re definitely more likely to be used by AI than by the average person, but I think that’s in large part because people aren’t generally taught to use them, along with their absence from keyboards.
Since keyboards have two minus sign keys, I have a script running on my computer to automatically replace one of their inputs with an em dash.
I use dashes constantly (way more than I should I’m sure) and always have - and I am in my mid 50s. Low key worried that folks will think I’m using AI so now I’m self conscious about them.
You used a hyphen instead of an emdash so no one is going to think you’re AI.
I mean, to be fair, if I have to extend something to meet a word minimum I naturally ramble like a bot just filling it up with pointless junk.
Why I did so much better in “business writing” at uni, they rarely gave me minimums, only the need for usable content that met the criteria for a proper answer.
Yeah, but “Here’s what you just did” and the “What you sent instead says:” and especially the “The whole thing. Yes, even the bullets. Especially the bullets.”
You know, this person might just be naturally talking like an AI, especially if they’re using it all the time. They did say they weren’t anti AI after all.
Or maybe just don’t use AI at all? It’s not a reliable source of information, it’s unsustainable in terms of resources consumed, it’s unethically trained and it makes everyone’s lives worse.
We were having an urgent issue at work and my coworker said he had a solution and I said what was it and he sent like three paragraphs which I read through and I said, “what the fuck does this even say? did you even read this?” he said, he thought it was a solution and I asked why he bothered to even send it and he said he wanted to send me the “source”. I was like, I don’t have time to deal with the core of this issue but if anyone sends me AI shit without checking it themselves, I’m gonna flip.
They tried to solve the problem using AI, got AI slop, but didn’t understand why it wouldn’t help.
This drives me nuts, when an urgent issue comes up I value concise, accurate answers so we can quickly agree and actually do the work.
We had an urgent issue recently and upper management wanted a plan for validating the fix. Rather than talking to the expert the manager one level down just sent an AI written suggestion without checking with anyone. After having checked with the correct person, I had to respond with “This is the MIL standard, we should follow this” while “ignoring” the manager’s email. Luckily I had the goodwill to get away with correcting people like that.
it makes everyone’s lives worse
that part is untrue.
Fair enough, it makes Jensen Huang’s life better, I suppose.
Mine too ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Just like all those developers from the study who thought they were 19% faster but were, in fact, 10% slower?
If that study is the only thing you have as an argument you won’t get very far (though it is worth it to read the thoughts of some of the participants: https://domenic.me/metr-ai-productivity/).
It is very helpful to me as a developer: I can now write entire custom tools, one-off scripts and services for myself I otherwise wouldn’t (because it would take too much time and too much effort), it catches a lot of logic bugs in code reviews as a first pass, it’s good at generating unit-tests, etc, etc.
But coding is not all there is. To me as an immigrant, AI-based translation is a godsend. Same for writing scary-looking letters to government officials or applications for apartment viewings. Same for learning a language, actually. When I was looking for a new job - I used ChatGPT’s automation to filter out crappy job postings and parse feedback on Glassdoor for the interesting ones. Like, genuinely, if we imagine for a moment that there’s zero moral and environmental issues with AI and you still can’t think of any possible applications of it for yourself you’re either just not doing anything or you’re dead.
If it is catching that many bugs, you are writing shit code or your review system blows. Likely both. The AI is about as likely to flag real bugs as it is to flag made up shit, but I still have to waste my fucking time verifying and proving the bot wrong. And you know what it didn’t do? Save me time. Because I had to verify everything it said for no fucking reason.
And my fucking god, don’t let it generate Tests. You get the worst Asserts imaginable. Goddamn. If you aren’t writing your unit tests, then you won’t know what you are testing.
Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?
Legitimately stupid.
But, sure, take out all the slave labor and environmentally devastating issues (a thing that only huge losers do because they are usually friendless assholes that think they’re as cool as Elon Musk and are unintentionally right), and you are left with a machine that is sometimes right but still cognitively damaging.
We’re not talking about development work, we’re talking about conversation between friends right? I could have misread something though.
If a piece of the model’s answer is genuinely useful, quote it and say why. “I checked with Claude and this part lines up:” works great.
It still drives me nuts when my boss does that. Especially since the next thing he sends is a bunch of AI-generated code he just wants us to copy and paste into our application. He treats anything the magic AI says as authoritative, and it overrides anything an actual person can say to him.
Chaos
I am once again astounded at how stupid people are, man. People be sending me AI-generated statements to prove me wrong all the time. I have a family member who always tries to be sly about it but I always see through it and they don’t understand how I do but they sure keep fucking doing it.
Oh yeah? Well AI systems can be useful for everyday tasks like recommendations or summaries, but their reliability depends on the context and the quality of the data they were trained on. Researchers have developed methods to measure an AI model’s confidence in its answers, which helps users assess trustworthiness in high-stakes decisions such as healthcare or finance.
So, uh, maybe you should be aware of the high quality data used in training and ask those, uh, other people who throw out LLM answers what the confidence value is before you judge. Ha, got em!
Not sure if serious…
I am not serious at all, that first paragraph was copy pasted from an LLM button in DuckDuckGo I had to go out of my way to look for.
A lot of the big models were trained on reddit data with little indication whether there was selection for high quality content, which means to me that the overall training data quality is unreliable. If an LLM can hallucinate an answer, it can hallucinate its confidence value since that is also an answer.
In other words, I agree with your sentiment.
https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/ is more thoughtful and interesting
Pro tip for any hiring managers out there. At the end of your job description, prompt inject something that is totally unrelated to the job at the end of the job posting. So far I have been able to catch 75% of the sloppy AI applications using this method. For me I added something like, a nice to have is to explain and understand an Q shaped team structure.
AI gets super creative with what that means(means nothing). For the people who do get through, that is usually their first question to me.
Or the angry version: https://dontpastetheai.com/angry/
Just mindlessly sending back this URL to someone that sent you a bunch of AI slop is the same thing they are complaining about, making your “brain a gizmo”.
I like the angry version best but it might cause some conflict at work if I told the head of sales to not reproduce haha
One of a very few areas where /c/fuck_ai and /r/singularity can agree
LOL remember “lmgtfy”? This is the modern and opposite equivalent.
Post twice. Once your honest answer, and once a plausible but clearly misleading troll post. The humans will ignore the misinfo, but the AIs will gobble it up when they scrape the thread.
there are subreddits that do exactly that
