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

Stop Sloppypasta

stopsloppypasta.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 275 posts

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#11

Post by torben-friis »

uniq7 wrote: post #4

This article's proposal for stopping sloppypasta is to convince the people who does it to stop doing it, but I am more interested on what someone who receives sloppypasta can do. How do I tell my colleagues to stop contributing unverified AI output without creating tension between us? I've never did that so far because I feel like I am either exposing their serious lack of professionalism or, if I wrongly assumed it…

>How do I tell my colleagues to stop contributing unverified AI output without creating tension between us?

Pattern rather than person? General team reviews or the like. As long as it's not tech leadership pressing for it..

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#12

Post by valicord »

madrox wrote: post #8

I find that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people angry at this type of behavior, even though I share the disdain for someone else's AI output. The people doing this kind of thing are not the kind of people to be reading this manifesto. We've been creating bait content for a long time, and humans have never been given the tools to manage this in any sophisticated fashion. The internet was not a bastion of high qu…

> I do find it interesting that people don't mind AI content, as long it's "their AI." The moment someone thinks it's someone else's AI output, the reaction is visceral.

Isn't it obvious? If I'd wanted to see AI response to my question, I'd ask it myself (maybe I already did). If I'm asking humans, I want to see human responses. I eat fast-food sometimes, but if I was served a Big Mac at a sit down restaurant I'd be properly upset.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#13

Post by madrox »

valicord wrote: post #12
madrox wrote: post #8

I find that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people angry at this type of behavior, even though I share the disdain for someone else's AI output. The people doing this kind of thing are not the kind of people to be reading this manifesto. We've been creating bait content for a long time, and humans have never been given the tools to manage this in any sophisticated fashion. The internet was not a bastion of high qu…

> I do find it interesting that people don't mind AI content, as long it's "their AI." The moment someone thinks it's someone else's AI output, the reaction is visceral. Isn't it obvious? If I'd wanted to see AI response to my question, I'd ask it myself (maybe I already did). If I'm asking humans, I want to see human responses. I eat fast-food sometimes, but if I was served a Big Mac at a sit down restaurant I'd be…

> If I'm asking humans, I want to see human responses

I find this fascinating, honestly. It shouldn't matter as long as it addresses your ask, yet it does. I also wish I could filter social media on "it's not X. It's Y"

Because it's probably not actually about the content but the sense of connection. People want to feel like they're connecting to people. That they're being worthy of someone's else's time and attention.

And if that's what people are seeking, slack and social media are probably not the platforms for it (and, arguably, never were).

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#14

Post by simianwords »

I've been thinking about this, what if AI runs autonomously and finds things to criticise that are factually incorrect?

It is easy to do in social media because the context is global but in enterprises it is a bit harder.

Something like "flagged as very likely untrue by AI" is something I would really appreciate.

I see many posts and comments throughout the internet that can easily be dispelled by a single LLM prompt. But this should only be used when the confidence is really high.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#15

Post by valicord »

madrox wrote: post #13
valicord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do find it interesting that people don't mind AI content, as long it's "their AI." The moment someone thinks it's someone else's AI output, the reaction is visceral. Isn't it obvious? If I'd wanted to see AI response to my question, I'd ask it myself (maybe I already did). If I'm asking humans, I want to see human responses. I eat fast-food sometimes, but if I was served a Big Mac at a sit down restaurant I'd be…

> If I'm asking humans, I want to see human responses I find this fascinating, honestly. It shouldn't matter as long as it addresses your ask, yet it does. I also wish I could filter social media on "it's not X. It's Y" Because it's probably not actually about the content but the sense of connection. People want to feel like they're connecting to people. That they're being worthy of someone's else's time and attentio…

> It shouldn't matter as long as it addresses your ask

But it doesn't? I'm more than capable of using Google and chatgpt myself. If I was looking for a machine generated answer to my question I would have already found it myself and never made the post in the first place. If I went to the effort of posting the question, it means that either the slop answer is not sufficient for some reason or that I want to hear from actual humans that have subjective experiences that an LLM cannot.

Posting an AI response verbatim basically says "I think you're too stupid to click a couple of buttons, so let me show you how it's done". I think it's very reasonable to get upset at the implication.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#16

Post by OptionOfT »

It's very weird how many people take the output of ChatGPT/Gemini/Claude as gospel, and don't question it at all.

It's also very impolite to dump 5 pages of text on someone, because now you're asking _them_ to validate it.

When I ask a question in Slack I want people's input. Part of my work is also consulting the GPTs and see if the information makes sense.

And it shows up the most with people who answer questions in domains they're not a 100% familiar with.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#17

Post by iso-logi »

uniq7 wrote: post #4

This article's proposal for stopping sloppypasta is to convince the people who does it to stop doing it, but I am more interested on what someone who receives sloppypasta can do. How do I tell my colleagues to stop contributing unverified AI output without creating tension between us? I've never did that so far because I feel like I am either exposing their serious lack of professionalism or, if I wrongly assumed it…

[dead]

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#18

Post by userbinator »

uniq7 wrote: post #4

This article's proposal for stopping sloppypasta is to convince the people who does it to stop doing it, but I am more interested on what someone who receives sloppypasta can do. How do I tell my colleagues to stop contributing unverified AI output without creating tension between us? I've never did that so far because I feel like I am either exposing their serious lack of professionalism or, if I wrongly assumed it…

How do I tell my colleagues to stop contributing unverified AI output without creating tension between us?

Make them realise they're replacing themselves if they continue down that path. "What value do you have if you're just acting as a pipe to the AI?"

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#19

Post by namnnumbr »

madrox wrote: post #8

I find that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people angry at this type of behavior, even though I share the disdain for someone else's AI output. The people doing this kind of thing are not the kind of people to be reading this manifesto. We've been creating bait content for a long time, and humans have never been given the tools to manage this in any sophisticated fashion. The internet was not a bastion of high qu…

I acknowledge that those likely to copypaste slop aren't likely to find this article themselves, but I built the page to be shared or guide discussions around etiquette like nohello.net or dontasktoask.com. IMO a common understanding of AI etiquette would provide social pressure to halt some of these behaviors.

I honestly don't mind someone else's AI as long as I can trust it/them. One problem I have with sloppypasta specifically is that it reads as raw LLM output and the user isn't transparent about how they worked with the AI or what they verified. "ChatGPT says" isn't enough; for me to avoid inheriting a verification burden, I'd also need to understand what they were prompting for, if they iterated with the AI, and if/what/how they validated.

(the other problem is that dumping a multi-paragraph response in the midst of a chat thread is just obnoxious, but that's true even if its artisanal human-written text)

Post reply on HN