Don't paste the AI, please • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#411

Post by buzz27 » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:47 PM UTC

i recently created https://needsmoresalt.org/ with a similar intent

figuring out the most useful epistemic and conversational norms around AI in work communication is still a work-in-progress.

there's times when "go talk to claude a bit and then get back to me with a more precise question" is reasonable, and other times where it inhibits learning and culture.

similarly, there are many occasions where i don't mind quoted AI with a human precis.

the most objectionable behaviours are not that different from pre-ai ones.

don't copypasta stackoverflow code without understanding it. don't submit PRs you can't explain to a colleague. don't waste time asking people things you can easily figure out. don't send unreviewed work to people expecting them to figure it out. don't quote authorities you don't understand.

all the same stuff applies to AI, but AI seems to have expanded the scope and scale of the bad behaviours, making the need for better defences more pressing.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#412

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:47 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #398

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you work for a company of more than 1 person, then helping and developing and mentoring your colleagues is part of your job, and a more important one than telling them to rtfm so you can spend those few minutes getting your own thing done. A company isn't just a bunch of people isolating themselves and doing their best to not talk to each other.

I always tell people "Here is the documentation, please tell me what is hard to understand so I can fix it". When someone is new on my team I tell them "here is our team documentation, your first task is to fix it so that the next person can follow the directions correctly". That is I make the conversation not about them reading the manual, but about making it worth reading. There is a large amount of really bad docu…

If your customers or colleagues are asking questions answered by your documentation, it's often a good sign your documentation has some challenges: dense; intimidating; inaccessible; or not easy to search for the specific information you want.

Take this valuable signal as a gift, letting you know there is an opportunity to improve the documentation. You could become known as a helpful person, rather than a maybe-efficient, antisocial loner.

If your documentation is generated (by script, tool, or AI), rather than written by a person, this goes double.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#413

Post by the_af » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:49 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #385

mhaberl wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I learned a different lesson: Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text. You get a short reply that is a re…

> Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I worked in a big multinational at the time ;-). So, yes. Mostly my direct managers were alright. Some were excellent even. But organizational politics and learning to read between the lines is part of working inside of big organizations. > You get a short reply that is a reply on a 1 sentence you wrote, twisted upside down ignoring com…

> Usually a clear sign that you are not communicating effectively

Agreed. I learned that in emails, a multi-paragraph, multi-item text means the recipient will randomly reply to only one of the points (often the least important one). So an effective email will make a single point, in as brief a manner as possible.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#414

Post by sixtyj » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

mhaberl wrote: post #353

jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The 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…

> Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I learned a different lesson: Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text. You get a short reply that is a re…

Mail is async by nature. Read them 2-3 times a day only (you don’t check mailbox 100 times a day :) and you get things done…

I prefer to reply to an e-mail immediately. Or never. If so than archive it or delete it.

If you don’t answer immediately, you carry it as opened mind window and probability to have your mind being unable to concentrate increases over time.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#415

Post by britches11 » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:52 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The 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…

The bad PM on the other side does not have the same tools I do because they refuse to use the agents I've set up for them to ask questions about the codebase.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#416

Post by yourapostasy » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:52 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The 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…

> If you are delegating something to somebody that reports to you, you can just tell them off.

Coaching someone on why the perspective of the receiver of their behavior works counter-purpose to their intent due to has so far always gotten me more durable and thoughtful behavior modifications than telling them off. I generally reserve telling off someone for proven malicious behavior from malicious intent.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#417

Post by catlifeonmars » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

john_strinlai wrote: post #364

mhaberl wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I learned a different lesson: Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text. You get a short reply that is a re…

> This is true 100% I would even say: "Never reply on anything instantly that is not an absolute emergency, ever" you can shorten this to "never reply instantly", because an "absolute emergency" will never be communicated by email.

Also, email delivery in general can be delayed for hours. It’s not common, but there are no delivery guarantees around email. You could reply immediately, and it could arrive in their inbox much later.

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#418

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

conductr wrote: post #403

chrisweekly wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text." Respectful hard disagree. Emails should be limited to five sentences. "I didn't have time to make a shorter reply" as an apology / disclaimer for rare exceptions. In virtually every case, anything longer belongs somewhere better than email (Slack, wiki / knowledgebase, docs site) or merits a realtime conversation. My PoV is shaped b…

Hard disagree back. Email has multiple contexts when I would say that short form is ideal and should be the default but at times a thoroughly long form email is needed. Or, honestly, you just need to create a document at this point. It could be a slide deck or word/markdown/excel/etc (depends on context) and this should be in the email. But email is key. My experience is that people search subject lines, conversation…

[deleted]

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#419

Post by setgree » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #308

The 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…

I get questions about academic papers I've written from non-academics sometimes. It's fun, I like that people are reading. However, some of them are clearly written by AI. I typically answer anyway, but on my most recent, I appended at the end:

> P.S. I intuit, and Pangram agrees, that this last email was AI-generated (and apparently so was the first one, now that I checked). As general career advice, I wish to observe that learning to write emails unaided is an extremely valuable skill in the dual senses that 1) writing is thinking [0] and 2) many people who receive an email they believe to be AI-generated will not be interested in corresponding, even if you're asking good questions, which you are. It would be a shame for that to get in the way of your research goals.

A polite, generic response like this is reasonably low-effort -- you must draft it once -- and might really help someone. Who knows though.

[0] hyperlinked to https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4

Re: Don't paste the AI, please

#420

Post by john_strinlai » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #380

mhaberl wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I learned a different lesson: Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text. You get a short reply that is a re…

> "Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text." Respectful hard disagree. Emails should be limited to five sentences. "I didn't have time to make a shorter reply" as an apology / disclaimer for rare exceptions. In virtually every case, anything longer belongs somewhere better than email (Slack, wiki / knowledgebase, docs site) or merits a realtime conversation. My PoV is shaped b…

>anything longer belongs somewhere better than email (Slack, wiki / knowledgebase, docs site)

wiki/kb or docs site, sure, depending what the topic is. but... slack? for your long-form communications?

please email me your long stuff, don't slack it to me. email is perfectly fine for longer text when longer text is required. (opinion also shaped over a long time in various roles at companies of various size)