Just post the prompt bro
Just pack the fries
Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
151–160 of 453 posts
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#152Obviously you need to use an AI to summarise the wall of text generated by the AI. Duh.
I was getting a lot of overly verbose annoying emails at my one workplace and I swear they probably had started to use AI to generate a lot of it. Outlook had added AI summarization buttons built right into the email client and I must admit that I did make use of it for these kind of emails.
Sadly the answer to save time in these cases sometimes is to use AI. Sometimes the emails being sent weren't even AI generated. Just emails from managers/directors who don't respect peoples time enough and think we care about their long essays of nothing. You kinda have to check the emails to make sure this isn't the one time something important was being said, so that's where the quick AI summarization comes in.
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#153"You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document." Oh look, another blog post that should have been a comment. No slop blogs either, loser.
Where should they have put the comment?
Nowhere since gpt wrote it. Normal humans dont talk like that. Normal actual humans with veins, arteries and a fully functioning endocrine system talk like ME
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Introducing AI made markdown tags for conversations so others can only see what the wanty
Could add a tag to that - but yes, if that was auto assigned by LLM - i could see that. Could even add a "Autistism" filter, preventing conversation digressing, filtering out only points that stay on topic and only the , that way.
> Could add a tag to that
Is that equivalent to the already popular ?
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#155[dead]
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think this is AI slop?...
> You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document. > It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness. These are particular sentences I find questionable. Would you write that way? I certainly wouldn't. GPTZero is by no means perfect, but it agreed this was likely generated.
We should instaban anyone who uses these patterns on ycombinator. If you talk like that for realsies, well too bad, try being more human and less linkedin next time
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document. > It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness. These are particular sentences I find questionable. Would you write that way? I certainly wouldn't. GPTZero is by no means perfect, but it agreed this was likely generated.
Not the parent, but yes I would/do write that way for effect.
Bro, do i got the bad news for you
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. It would be a wonderful world where every overseas contractor that I interacted with used the AI tools in this fashion. Even among native speakers, literacy is way down. AI could help with that… if people actually do the work. That’s the real problem, not AI: no one wants to do the work. That is purely a PEBKAC situation.
Science says the opposite, sorry. People lose their language skills when they outsource their thinking to AI. You can believ what you want want but that doesn't change the facts.
Pretty sure the references you are referring to are about losing coding skills, which is a very different set of skills than language skills. The kagi link (1) a sibling comment left was an example of an AI that can improve writing while also informing about better writing style. As opposed to the slop grenade, which is outsourcing thinking to AI.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48219992#48221497
The point is, you don't have to outsource your thinking to use AI, if it's a good AI tool. But most AI companies are coming from a hyper-scaling mindset where addicting the user to the product is the same as substituting hard thinking for easy dopamine hits. The most ridiculous benchmark I have seen in AI is the tendency to say the longer an agent can work and some minimal accuracy is a good thing. That just means you have 30 steps to find an error in instead of 3, and you are much more likely to just abdicate thought instead of the hard work of proofing 30 steps yourself. AI companies and evaluators are losing the point.
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#159reminds me of https://stopsloppypasta.ai/ related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389570
I prefer the brevity and branding of slopgrenade, to be honest sloppypasta itself has a slop energy to me. Maybe it's the UX and the density of the website though, it does have a similar messaging.
Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
#160I think the bigger issue is the motivations for posting AI slop.
To me, a lot of these responses aren't made in good faith; instead, they come from bots that are some kind of training experiment. (Like when a bot responds to one of my HN posts.)
Even if the response isn't a bot, if it's just someone copying and pasting AI, how can someone reasonably think that just shuffling a comment into AI is adding any value?