151–160 of 275 posts
It's ironic, because the site has all the hallmarks of an LLM generated website.
Oh, I 100% acknowledge the site itself was LLM generated. I'm not a web designer, so I needed a lot of help making a visually appealing site, even if that design language is at this point LLM trope. However, the essay and the guidelines were all human-written!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better, reply only with the prompt that you would have used, not the resulting text. Don't even run the prompt through an LLM. That results in a shorter and more concise message, and the original sender can choose to use the prompt you provided on their favourite LLM from the start.
Right. You might also consider high-lighting some things you learned from AI's response. Summarizing it and perhaps critiquing it. AI, and different AIs, give different answers to the same question, so it may be useful if you can provide a good summary of the different responses you got.
You could even pipe the final summary directly to your email/IM client and save yourself the copy-paste.
I’ve encountered an even more nightmarish version of this recently: ai generated tickets. Basically dumping the output of “write a detailed product spec for a clinical trial data collection pipeline” into a jira ticket and handing it off. Doesn’t match any of our internal product design, adds tons of extraneous features. When I brought this up with said PM they basically responded that these inaccuracies should just…
I’ve encountered an even more nightmarish version of this recently: ai generated tickets. Basically dumping the output of “write a detailed product spec for a clinical trial data collection pipeline” into a jira ticket and handing it off. Doesn’t match any of our internal product design, adds tons of extraneous features. When I brought this up with said PM they basically responded that these inaccuracies should just…
Yes. My Jira tickets used to be almost empty, but all of it was useful info. Now, my Jira tickets are way too long. The amount of useful info has also gone down. Talk about an AI induced productivity increase ...
Anyway.
People are starting to log support tickets using Copilot. It's easily recognisable, and they just fire a Copilot-generated email into the Helldesk, which then means I have to pick through six paragraphs of scrool to find basic things like what's actually wrong and where. Apparently this is a great improvement for everyone over tickets that just say "John MacDonald's phone is crackling, extension number 2345" because that's somehow not informative enough for me to conf up a new one and throw it at the van driver to take to site next time he's passing, and then bring the broken one back for me to repair or scrap.
Progress, eh?
I’ve encountered an even more nightmarish version of this recently: ai generated tickets. Basically dumping the output of “write a detailed product spec for a clinical trial data collection pipeline” into a jira ticket and handing it off. Doesn’t match any of our internal product design, adds tons of extraneous features. When I brought this up with said PM they basically responded that these inaccuracies should just…
Some people use AI as they use anything else. Careless, without putting the effort in, making things somebody else's problem. This existed before AI, it just accelerated the stupidity.
Related - On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt. What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either abou…
The Wikipedia page has some good counter-strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I’ve encountered an even more nightmarish version of this recently: ai generated tickets. Basically dumping the output of “write a detailed product spec for a clinical trial data collection pipeline” into a jira ticket and handing it off. Doesn’t match any of our internal product design, adds tons of extraneous features. When I brought this up with said PM they basically responded that these inaccuracies should just…
Is tossing stuff over the fence considered ok now? Review the slop with the person that submitted it.
I’ve encountered an even more nightmarish version of this recently: ai generated tickets. Basically dumping the output of “write a detailed product spec for a clinical trial data collection pipeline” into a jira ticket and handing it off. Doesn’t match any of our internal product design, adds tons of extraneous features. When I brought this up with said PM they basically responded that these inaccuracies should just…
Apparently, asking "why it doesn't make any sense" wasn't !polite~
If I remember correctly, she came up with ~200 questions for a 2-paged ticket. I helped write some of them, because for parts of the word salad you had to come up with the meaning first and then question the meaning.
You know what happened after she presented it? Ticket got rewritten as a job requirement, and now they seeking some poor sod to make it make sense lol
One had to be very unqualified to even get through the interview for that job without asking questions about the job, I feel. Truly, an AI-generated job for anyone who is new to the field
I’ve encountered an even more nightmarish version of this recently: ai generated tickets. Basically dumping the output of “write a detailed product spec for a clinical trial data collection pipeline” into a jira ticket and handing it off. Doesn’t match any of our internal product design, adds tons of extraneous features. When I brought this up with said PM they basically responded that these inaccuracies should just…
Is tossing stuff over the fence considered ok now? Review the slop with the person that submitted it.
Has been for a long time unfortunately. AI didn't create this behaviour but certainly made it easier for the other side to do it.
> Review the slop with the person that submitted it.
Alternatively, mark them as "Needs Work" if you can. But yes, put the ball in their court by peppering them with questions. Maybe they will get the hint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. In my case I do write from time to time tickets with an LLM but it's always after a long exploratory session with Claude Code, when I go back and forth checking possibilities and gathering data, and then I tell it to create a ticket with the info gathered so far. But even in that case I tend to edit it because I don't like the style or add some useless data that I want to remove.
It sounds like you'd save a lot of time if you just didn't use the LLM.
They write shit code, but but can be prompted to highlight common failures in certain proposals.
For example, I am planning a gateway now, and the ChatGPT correctly pointed out many common vulnerabilities that occur in such a product, all of which I knew but may not have remembered while coding, like request smuggling.
It missed a few, but that's okay too, because I have a more comprehensive list written down than I would have had if I rubber ducked with an actual rubber duck.
If I finally write this product, my product spec has a list of warnings.