Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 obser…
it’s passive aggressive. ultimately it’s better to not inform and start ignoring these people. let natural selection work.
Don't paste the AI, please
471–480 of 632 posts
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Natural selection is demonstrably not working. It only takes one look at a newspaper to see that thoughtlessness and stupidity are doing better than ever. I think the internet is pretty great, but it's a major factor in that rise in at least 3 ways: * Previously, an important check on fools was social consequences. Now they have an endless supply of people to bother. Spammers were the first to exploit that, but now i…
Natural selection selects for reproductive fitness, not intelligence.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#473DontMakeWebsitesFullOfObviousAISlopThatComplainAboutUsingAITheIronyIsTooThickForMe.com
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 obser…
it’s passive aggressive. ultimately it’s better to not inform and start ignoring these people. let natural selection work.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#475The 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’ve heard this “conclusion” from many people over my career. I disagree as a general rule as much of my work is scientific and technical and long replies are more useful than talking as having things written down makes things reproducible and shareable.
I think long emails are bad ways to deliberate or debate or to collaboratively create. But they are great for communicating complex ideas to variable size audiences (ie, one person forwards to their team or files things off for later reference). Even better when accompanied to a link to a web version that can be revised with additional info later.
This really helps due to the async nature. Getting on the phone with someone and talking through an idea with them assumes both parties have time to do that. And is a silly suggestion when 5 people need to read something.
I find it more efficient to get a thoughtfully crafted email than a phone call that still will need to be followed up with an email to confirm all parties understand.
My, probably wrong, take is that the “talk, don’t write” people is based on their inability to logically think through, structure, and communicate their ideas and, instead, would rather connect directly and hope the solution emerges from a conversation.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#476Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#477The 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…
not mine, no license, only chinese language on the eventual page, but has the beginnings of something beautiful
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The value in having a human write it is that whenever something bad/misleading/redundant is introduced, that person will learn from the feedback, For me, the value of receiving comms from a human is different: it communicates not just the idea itself, but the fact that the human already understands the idea. The people arguing that round-tripping their thoughts through AI still means that it's their thoughts appare…
I don't think you quite realize the implications of what you're saying. Surely you don't actually believe, or even desire, for everyone to fully understand everything that they say... No room for questions, uncertainty, bewilderment, etc? If someone is feigning competence via AI, that's the problem. Not Ai. If they use Ai to polish a communication, be it statement, question, etc, and they do it in a thoughtful manner…
They don't though; I have never seen this happen. I have seen many people claim that's what they do, but not convincingly.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#479The 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…
It used to be when I got something boring a person wrote I felt obligated to read it. Now I am not sure what to do.
Re: Don't paste the AI, please
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
if they didn't rtfm they are not being respectful of your time. unless you are literally first-day brand new, you should not be approaching a mentor for help getting unstuck without an answer ready for "what have you tried?"
> if they didn't rtfm they are not being respectful of your time Yes they are. "RTFM" may be an angsty insult thrown around in some toxic open source projects, but it's rude and inappropriate for an actual working environment where you're supposed to (and being paid to) help others. Most time spent at a company at a normal job is collaborating with others. Your time is not so valuable that you cannot use it to make o…
The question is whether one employee's time is more valuable than another employee's time. One employee answering another employee's question expends two people's time. If the answer is in the book or on the first page of google, it is wasting one of those employee's time, and that is the boss's money. If the employee asking the question makes ten times as much as the employee answering the question, and it saves him 10% of his time over flipping through the manual, it's a wash. If both employees make the same amount, or the other person even makes less, it is obviously a waste.
This is simple.
RTFM isn't an angsty insult. It is a suggestion because I am not going to answer your question if it is in the manual.