I wish the author lived by the same principle, seeing how the text on the webpage is pretty evidently AI-generated.
as far as I can see, the author is not copy/pasting the AI output as answer to a question.
Don't paste the AI, please
311–320 of 632 posts
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is... I think your linked chat demonstrates quite well why you are wrong. The sender's burden is a few lines of text "Write me $FOO, conclude with $BAR". The recipients burden is an order of magnitude greater, trying to find your conclusion in hundreds of lines of text. After all, your initial line: > B…
OP's point was not that pasting AI output is great. It's rather that it depends on the quality of the output, and that it's on the sender to ensure it is good.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#313Heh. Just got done writing (by hand!) a Principles of AI Use document for my (ironically) AI enablement firm, the first of which is: Write as yourself. You’re being paid for your expertise and insights. Communicate them directly to us. Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else, and worse, risks skipping that step for your…
If the response of AI is sufficient, why would i retype it in my own words? Just a waste of time. Most of what i have AI generate is based on my words and input anyways. I'll often write a draft note, and then have AI generate multiple formats, e.g., technical wording, marketing wording, management wording. Almost like taking raw content and using AI to rephrase it for specific channels.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#314Heh. Just got done writing (by hand!) a Principles of AI Use document for my (ironically) AI enablement firm, the first of which is: Write as yourself. You’re being paid for your expertise and insights. Communicate them directly to us. Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else, and worse, risks skipping that step for your…
Your whole handwritten Principles of AI document is a testament to failed leadership. That’s all it is.
The only reason someone needs to write this is because leadership is not smart enough to solve the problems it showcases, in a way that is respectful to how the employees with years of experience learned their craft.
They have a tried and tested thought pipeline that makes them capable of what you hired them for, and you try to introduce a magic eightball to that and then force them to research that whatever the statement that shows up on the ball is true before they relay it to someone else. It’s unnatural nonsense.
Ingenuity comes from that spark in your brain that happens when you really dig into something because you’re interested in it. A machine will never be capable of that. AI didn’t invent a single thing, it’s simply finding stuff in all the data the labs stole that is already there and humans overlooked.
Now you force people to start working with whatever the magic word generator put out and go from there. They have zero incentive for that, because those thoughts come out of a black box and are not their own.
I find it ethically troublesome you somehow see the need to force behavioral change down the employees’ throats because company leadership is collectively failing to address the core of why people paste AI into everything.
They have nothing but disrespect for the technology, because it makes their job harder and them as a person dumber and less satisfied with their work.
Hire an external company to do interviews with each employee about their use of AI in your company and how the way your company is using those tools annoys them. You’d be surprised what you find out, when people have no repercussions to fear and anonymity.
There is huge resistance if you see it necessary to write a document for the whole company that forces behavioural changes.
Sure, you can hit the dog until it does what you want, but if you do that long enough, you get your head bitten off.
You need to find out why people are doing all these things, and then fix them. No extra paperwork is needed.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me how I've had to tell people to try to type better and nt us wird abbrvs, even if it means they can type it faster. Because if you want 100 people to read it, then every second you waste for the reader is worth you fixing up your message for over a minute. It's very likely that proper punctuation and capital letters help the reader, then it doesn't matter than not using them is faster to type. I'm sure…
That's a good use for AI. Type loosely and ask it to fix up the spelling, capitalization and punctuation.
Fixing spelling, capitalization, and punctuation...that's just a spell checker, no fancy LLM needed.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangentially I also hate if someone answers with a voice message. I can understand that there are situations where you just can't type out the answer and those exceptions are of course fine, but if you post a voice message or god forbid a video message in a group chat you are forcing everyone to take the time and sit through it.
The WhatsApp voice message is very common in Spain. I always find it jarring when I'm there, mostly because I'm not used to it, but also because it seems to defeat the purpose of the messaging app: I can't listen to your voice message on the bus, for instance. It's so normalized there that I wonder whether this is a particularly Spanish habit. Maybe there are a bunch of countries where people routinely leave each oth…
It's a habit in specific countries, China is one in my experience.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#317Well not sure if I agree fully.
On one hand it does make a lot of sense to process and answer w/ your own words.
But, sometimes if what the agent says make sense and you just want to handoff findings that is also fine - I legit don't feel the need to be super strict.
In startup environment where people are more chill about this, this seems totally fine.
It would be more frustrating in a corp/executive environment where thing have to get more structure before being communicated and passed around. Someone would probably be justifiably tagged as lazy.
But I think ideally agents should speak to agents when this kind of comm goes through. What a nice opportunity here ;)
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is... I think your linked chat demonstrates quite well why you are wrong. The sender's burden is a few lines of text "Write me $FOO, conclude with $BAR". The recipients burden is an order of magnitude greater, trying to find your conclusion in hundreds of lines of text. After all, your initial line: > B…
OP's point was not that pasting AI output is great. It's rather that it depends on the quality of the output, and that it's on the sender to ensure it is good.
> OP's point was not that pasting AI output is great. It's rather that it depends on the quality of the output, and that it's on the sender to ensure it is good.
And yet, he was unable to do the same (see his link). He demonstrated that he was able to more clearly articulate his point than the LLM he conversed with.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#319The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. The underlying problem here is that communication is hard; especially if it's not face to face. People can't read your mind o…
> what’s the equivalent of “google it yourself” these days?
Do you actually say that to people?
Edit: i’ve hit the comment limit per given time, but all I have to say is “what have you found so far?” And “Google it yourself” are radically different responses man. The former is far more reasonable, it shows you are willing to be helpful and is a productive question. The other is just rude and implies your time is too valuable as well as assumes they’ve done nothing to tackle the problem. If you actually say “Google it yourself” when people ask you a question that would be absolutely bizarre behavior.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your writing tendencies must be quite bad if Claude's tendencies are an improvement. Isn't writing a skill issue?
Thanks for sharing a perfect example of something that any AI could have helped you improve
Having AI do the work for you doesn't increase your writing skills, in fact, the opposite!
Instead of seeing the errors and thinking about what changes the draft needs ('improving' your writing skills'), you're letting someone else tell you what changes to make.
Because you aren't internalizing the corrections, guess what happens next time: your writing gets worse, AI comes to help...rinse and repeat.