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

Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

noslopgrenade.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 453 posts

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#241

Post by harvey9 »

fmbb wrote: post #124
nikeee wrote: post #67

When I'm encountering some WoT like that, I'd like to have a button like "view source", but for "view prompt". Most ai generated messages or docs are unnecessarily verbose and just reading the prompt would suffice. I don't really get why some people seem to think that it's somehow better to have their bullet point prompt as a huge text. It just wastes my time. And probably only makes it look like it took more effort…

I just want a ”report to HR” button. Someone is actively inhibiting their coworkers’ ability to work.

HR will send you an ai-written reply

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#242

Post by great_wubwub »

emsign wrote: post #66
great_wubwub wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a coworker whose first language isn't English. She uses AI to polish up her writing, particularly long documents. She puts a ton of effort into making sure that it still reads well. Because of this effort her writing is strong and precise. Before AI she made all the obvious mistakes you'd expect from someone who's not a native English speaker. It's very hard to tell that she used AI because she puts so much ef…

You do realize that when you have to find a special use case to defend something you are really giving an argument AGAINST casual widespread use of it.

Are you arguing that trying to write more clearly is a 'special use case'?

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#243

Post by scared_together »

linkregister wrote: post #177
nlawalker wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me > I'd prefer This is exactly my point. To some people, direct communication, especially "no", is extremely rude. To some people, a head bob (easily confused for a "yes" in other cultures) merely means acknowledgement, or "maybe". To some people, extended silence indicates deep consideration or respect. Globalization resulted in a need to tolerate these differences, and in my experience, trying to "fix" them i…

In my culture, I prefer not to wear clothing in public. I also prefer not to be confined to toilets when transferring personal products. Maybe there are some universal conventions we can accept.

Nudists exist, and compared to the span of human history toilets are a recent phenomenon.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#244

Post by fortyseven »

SoftTalker wrote: post #134
csbrooks wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, acting in good faith means saying something like "I'm not sure, but Claude says this, which sounds right: [short informative clip from Claude's wall of text]". Don't pretend it's your response, make sure it has info you think is useful, and edit it down.

I'd prefer just "I don't know." I can ask Claude on my own.

That's how I'm finding I feel, too. It's not that I don't use LLMs myself, but I trust myself enough to know how to filter that data that comes back from them and compare it to actual facts. I don't necessarily know the processing of this information from the other person, to trust that they vet the information properly. So instead of it being helpful to me, it becomes incredibly irritating. Especially because I just know they're going to expect me to take that data at face value quite often. And then it's going to be on me to vet the data. How about you just let me get the data myself and cut out the middleman?

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#245

Post by isityettime »

I actually don't care about the length so much. Short AI slop answers are also offensive, and people who act like reading a paragraph or two is a huge burden are frankly get no respect from me either. Idk why professionals should tolerate subliteracy among their colleagues.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#246

Post by p_j_w »

SoftTalker wrote: post #134
csbrooks wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, acting in good faith means saying something like "I'm not sure, but Claude says this, which sounds right: [short informative clip from Claude's wall of text]". Don't pretend it's your response, make sure it has info you think is useful, and edit it down.

I'd prefer just "I don't know." I can ask Claude on my own.

>I can ask Claude on my own.

I've already used up the tokens, why donate money to Anthropic?

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#247

Post by low_tech_love »

isityettime wrote: post #245

I actually don't care about the length so much. Short AI slop answers are also offensive, and people who act like reading a paragraph or two is a huge burden are frankly get no respect from me either. Idk why professionals should tolerate subliteracy among their colleagues.

The sad thing is that the website itself is AI written, only made to be shorter and more concise. But still not human written.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#248

Post by boelboel »

HeartStrings wrote: post #166
hootz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then a better recommendation should be to use specialized AI proofreading tools, such as Kagi Translate's proofread feature. Yeah, it uses AI, but the "harness" around it forces you to use it only to improve your text, not sloppify it. https://translate.kagi.com/proofread

Why would you proofread in 2026?? Punctuation and grammar errors give further credence to human authorship.

Proofread and then ask to add in 3 small common but not extremely dumb mistakes.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#249

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

nlawalker wrote: post #128

I've decided that I'm done being pissy about this kind of response, or thinking that it's something that can be coached away. I choose to look at it like any other cultural communication difference - something that you learn about, try to give some grace to, and work a little harder to bridge (unless you're defusing a bomb, performing surgery, flying an airplane etc.). In this person's communication culture, they are…

I try not to be pissy about it, but the problem is this from the source article:

> Worse: it's a conversation killer. There's nothing to respond to. Your wall of text suppresses dialogue. They can't reply, can't push back, can't clarify. It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness.

Conversational norms simply do not allow me to give grace or bridge the gap. It would be so, so rude for me to infer that they meant to say "I don't know" if it turns out that it really was a detailed answer they expected me to read in full. I respect that the people who do this probably mean well, but there's some conversations I just can't have with people who respond this way, in the same way that there's some conversations I can't have with people who aren't comfortable exploring contested hypotheticals.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#250

Post by low_tech_love »

nlawalker wrote: post #128

I've decided that I'm done being pissy about this kind of response, or thinking that it's something that can be coached away. I choose to look at it like any other cultural communication difference - something that you learn about, try to give some grace to, and work a little harder to bridge (unless you're defusing a bomb, performing surgery, flying an airplane etc.). In this person's communication culture, they are…

I think you’re wrong in one thing: Reading through meaningless walls of text takes time and effort that I’m not willing to waste. So it’s not just accepting a different culture; it’s not “free”. Reading AI grenades is really stressful (at least for me).
Post reply on HN