Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

noslopgrenade.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 453 posts

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#11

Post by joenot443 »

This is slop too though, right?

> Pasting a massive AI-generated response into a chat or email where a human would write one sentence. It destroys the medium itself. Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste.

> It's like calling someone and asking "What time is the meeting?" and they read you a 10-page analysis of calendar management best practices. You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document.

It’s hard to take the site seriously if the author themself isn’t able to write

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#13

Post by shevy-java »

When real people use AI slop to spam me down, I instantly know that this person does not want to communicate with me. So I stop all communication with that person.

What is interesting is that some people don't understand this - even some clever devs.

For instance, on the ffmpeg mailing list a few weeks ago, one of the lead devs from Germany, spammed a proposal with AI slop. Someone else asked the question why he expects others to read the slop and "engage" with this or that developer. That was a great question. The interesting thing is that the original developer who succumbed to slop, did not even understand why AI slop spam is problematic to other people. AI already changes how people work and also think. That is a big problem. I used to semi-jokingly say that AI slop is the beginning of skynet, but as I watch real people succumb to the AI slop, they actively (!) become dumber and don't understand why AI slop wastes the time of other people.

I am not at all saying that AI is completely useless, though the current hype is annoying to no ends. But some individual humans don't understand the problem at all anymore. Personally I do not want to "interact" with AI slop at all. It just wastes my time.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#14

Post by misswaterfairy »

> Use AI to make things clearer, not longer. Let it sharpen your thinking, not replace it.

If someone sends me an AI generated email, chat message, or message substantially influenced by AI[1], one of two not mutually exclusive things will happen:

1. I ask them not to use AI as I want to hear from a human colleague about their human thoughts, not a robot;

2. The message gets deleted.

I try as best I can to teach and mentor others. I am more than happy to work through spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and misused words because at the end of the day I'm talking to a human colleague.

Sometimes my messages get pretty long and detailed I will admit, though it's for a reason: context, nuance and technical details are important. If you're just going to offload your brain to a robot, I'm not going to waste my time feeding that robot with you in the middle as a conduit.

[1] It is very easy to tell in in-person conversations: the authority with which a person talks about a particular topic via text communication, does not propagate into a verbal in-person conversation.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#15

Post by time0ut »

The best are the Jira tickets with a huge wall of AI slop requirements. Usually full of nonsense of course including implementation recommendations in the wrong language or framework. Questions for clarification met with blank stares from the author. Ah well, copy/paste into claude code and say “do this. make no mistakes” and get back to browsing HN…

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#17

Post by Biganon »

joenot443 wrote: post #11

This is slop too though, right? > Pasting a massive AI-generated response into a chat or email where a human would write one sentence. It destroys the medium itself. Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste. > It's like calling someone and asking "What time is the meeting?" and they read you a 10-page analysis of calendar management best practices. You asked a simple question. They l…

What makes you think this is AI slop?...

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#18

Post by warumdarum »

SwiftyBug wrote: post #8

> Nobody writes essays in Slack I 100% write long texts in Slack. I always try to provide as much context as possible when reaching out to someone with a question or request.

Introducing AI made markdown tags for conversations so others can only see what the wanty

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#19

Post by foobarbecue »

joenot443 wrote: post #11

This is slop too though, right? > Pasting a massive AI-generated response into a chat or email where a human would write one sentence. It destroys the medium itself. Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste. > It's like calling someone and asking "What time is the meeting?" and they read you a 10-page analysis of calendar management best practices. You asked a simple question. They l…

I found the writing clear, concise, and human.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#20

Post by donatj »

SwiftyBug wrote: post #8

> Nobody writes essays in Slack I 100% write long texts in Slack. I always try to provide as much context as possible when reaching out to someone with a question or request.

Honestly, speaking as a friend, and as someone who's been at this a very long time, maybe stop doing that?

It doesn't foster conversion and I personally find it kind of a hostile/disrespectful communication style. It's much harder to have a proper back and forth with a firehouse than it is a few sentences at a time.

It declares authority "these are the facts" rather than "let's discuss ideas" and if you haven't fully earned that authority it honestly just kind of smells of insecurity.

If there's something in the middle of a wall of text that invalidates something much further down, trying to communicate the problem becomes a pain in the butt. It's just not a good method for discovery.

Post reply on HN