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

201–210 of 275 posts

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#201

Post by 63stack »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #145
galaxyLogic wrote: post #141

Shouldn't the etiquette be that if you send someone a response from AI, you start your message by telling the prompt that produced that reponse? That, would give the responder the chance to modify the prompt and get a perhaps better answer from the LLM?

Even better, reply only with the prompt that you would have used, not the resulting text. Don't even run the prompt through an LLM. That results in a shorter and more concise message, and the original sender can choose to use the prompt you provided on their favourite LLM from the start.

AKA, just send your actual message directly and leave out the llm.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#204

Post by bigfishrunning »

Gigachad wrote: post #165
est31 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI etiquette is a great term. AI is useful in general but some patterns of AI usage are annoying. Especially if the other side spent 10 seconds on something and expects you to treat it seriously. Currently it's a bit of a wild west, but eventually we'll need to figure out the correct set of rules of how to use AI.

I'm hearing nightmare stories from my friends in retail and healthcare where someone walks in holding a phone and asks you talk to them through their chatbot on their phone. Friend had a person last week walk in and ask they explain what he does to Grok and then ask Grok what questions they should ask him.

What shocks me is the complete lack of self awareness of the person holding the phone. People have been incapable of independent thought for a while, but to hold up a flag and announce this to your surroundings is really something else.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#205

Post by hananova »

leekrasnow wrote: post #196

I disagree with the premise of automatically dismissing sloppypasta just because it is verbatim LLM output. The sender could hypothetically have spent real effort in the chat interaction that led up to the ctrl-C moment, could have spent real effort weighing all the points raised and thought to themselves “this is all valid stuff to consider, let me forward it to my colleagues and see what they think for some additio…

> The sender could hypothetically have spent real effort in the chat interaction that led up to the ctrl-C moment […]

Irrelevant. As soon as the ctrl-c moment happened, all of the real effort became worthless and utterly overwhelmed by the slop in the face. I do not read LLM responses. I will stop reading any text as soon as it becomes clear it was LLM generated. If it is in a setting where I have the power to do something about it, it will be swiftly followed by a flag/ban/block/ignore/comment deletion…

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#206

Post by bigfishrunning »

sjamaan wrote: post #167
rhysfonixone wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said, carelessness of the user persists regardless of the tools they're using. The cracks may show in other ways though.

I think before, it was easier to spot. Before, the effort spent would often show in the volume or consistency of the writing. Now, one can create a big, wordy and convincing-sounding document (without any grammatical errors!) in mere seconds. It also provides for some convenient plausible deniability: you can always claim the LLM only helped you here and there with the wording. So now, even figuring out that it was a…

I would much rather have my prose contain grammatical errors then have anyone mistake it for LLM output. I am absolutely shocked that anyone has the opposite preference.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#207

Post by m_mueller »

sbinnee wrote: post #134

As a senior engineer, I am getting extremely tired of reviewing AI slops. Today at work I have decided that I just have to build a POC project from scratch. I spent 2 weeks to review the code, to log the process, and to build toy examples to make my argument clear that some (actually most) parts were not working. The funny thing is that I know my manager got this “working” within a week with Claude. I had to spend 2…

why is there even an expectation / requirement that a POC's code should be taken into production? wouldn't you be much faster to just regenerate from scratch, but this time with your proper architectural guidelines in a planning document and with proper code reviews in place?

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#208

Post by bagacrap »

efilife wrote: post #132
bagacrap wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's tough. I tend to take the path of just responding with one line to their wall of text. What are they going to do, send a second wall of text?

And what do they usually do?

Context dependent I suppose. But usually they just abandon their argument. (I have never seen this tactic used when the argument had any merit to begin with, nor by someone senior to me.)

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#209

Post by RankingMember »

lesostep wrote: post #170
user142 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first question should have been "Was this ticket AI-generated?".

Oh, it was! But the guy that generated it insisted that he triple-checked the prose after, and it should be treated as typed by hand I'm pretty sure it would be okay to stop at 5-10 questions, because it was clear he couldn't answer any. But my friend is from a hateful branch, and so she went for humiliation angle of asking for as much clarification as the ticket itself allowed

I'm continually flabbergasted that this is accepted and not immediate grounds for punitive action- plopping slop into a ticket (or having it generated directly) is straight-up disrespectful to the person on the other end. I'd rather have someone slap me in the face directly than get one of these tickets.

Re: Stop Sloppypasta

#210

Post by dev_l1x_be »

Gigachad wrote: post #166
dev_l1x_be wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people use AI as they use anything else. Careless, without putting the effort in, making things somebody else's problem. This existed before AI, it just accelerated the stupidity.

Careless people never used to be able to create such absolute volumes of garbage that flood the system. Open source projects used to be able to just have an open PRs system, because the effort to create and submit something is quite hard, it's a natural filter. Now automated agents can flood a project with hundreds of useless PRs that disguise themselves as being real.

Exactly my point.
Post reply on HN