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

251–260 of 453 posts

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#251

Post by keybored »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #217
keybored wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad populum. What’s the common denominator on a nerd forum w.r.t interpreting tone cues? No, not even the mock URL was enough.

If we’re going to go down that route, then we should also acknowledge that it’s a nerd forum that is typically reserved for serious discussion. Being sarcastic and cracking wise is generally discouraged

People make jokes here plenty. And being sarcastic? Only all the time. You can post 300-word matter-of-fact, spelling out all the premises comments. Or twenty-word quips that say the same thing. Both will be accepted depending on the mood.

But stubbornly trying to win arguments (imagined or real)? Oy vey. That’s a reservation that takes up a private jumbo jet.

Edit: And I saw your pot/kettle reply that you deleted. Of course you couldn’t help yourself. Mate.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#252

Post by mikeweiss »

csbrooks wrote: post #129
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…

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.

Or just "I don't know, but researching quickly right now maybe 'xyz'"? Agreed that you need to at least read the response and summarize... Not just copy and paste

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#253

Post by karmakaze »

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 wish the copy button for a response included the prompt (unless it's code). So many times I'm reading a response that starts running assuming the context of the prompt and I'm left wondering what it's about for the first half.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#254

Post by low_tech_love »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #233
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.

Even that is bad. It’s similar to “I don’t know, but these are the top three links when I searched Google.” It’s a useless response, verbal chaff. And friendlies don’t use countermeasures.

Yeah, you’re spot on, and I hope people catch up on this soon (it’s already taking too long). I think one thing that most people haven’t realized yet is that reading AI slop bombs is really time consuming and stressful. We’re still operating on the assumption that reading is “free”, which came from the fact that writing took time and effort and written words were mostly meaningful before (at least you read something that you know took someone some time to write). But now that “writing” slop is so easy, reading can’t keep up. We can’t just keep reading all the meaningless crap people dump everywhere. It’s not scalable or even doable.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#255

Post by chowells »

nlawalker wrote: post #146
SoftTalker wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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…

What's culture got to do with it? If I wanted LLM responses, I'd have prompted for them myself. This is true in every single culture. The very fact that I asked a person means that I want the information they can provide, not LLM information. There is no culture in which that is false. So there is no culture in which providing LLM content is a useful response.

How you politely communicate that you don't have anything to add? That varies by culture. That LLM content is not a useful response? That does not vary by culture.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#256

Post by [deleted] »

keybored wrote: post #251
Forgeties79 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re going to go down that route, then we should also acknowledge that it’s a nerd forum that is typically reserved for serious discussion. Being sarcastic and cracking wise is generally discouraged

People make jokes here plenty. And being sarcastic? Only all the time. You can post 300-word matter-of-fact, spelling out all the premises comments. Or twenty-word quips that say the same thing. Both will be accepted depending on the mood. But stubbornly trying to win arguments (imagined or real)? Oy vey. That’s a reservation that takes up a private jumbo jet. Edit: And I saw your pot/kettle reply that you deleted. O…

[deleted]

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#257

Post by [deleted] »

keybored wrote: post #251
Forgeties79 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re going to go down that route, then we should also acknowledge that it’s a nerd forum that is typically reserved for serious discussion. Being sarcastic and cracking wise is generally discouraged

People make jokes here plenty. And being sarcastic? Only all the time. You can post 300-word matter-of-fact, spelling out all the premises comments. Or twenty-word quips that say the same thing. Both will be accepted depending on the mood. But stubbornly trying to win arguments (imagined or real)? Oy vey. That’s a reservation that takes up a private jumbo jet. Edit: And I saw your pot/kettle reply that you deleted. O…

[deleted]

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#258

Post by submeta »

Not everything can be answered with yes or no. I used to give thorough answers even pre-LLMs. When someone asks about a project and its details, I am supposed to give a one sentence answer because LLMs give lengthy answers and that sucks?

This is like people hating on em-dash because LLMs use them a lot.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#259

Post by hungryhobbit »

AI conversations are like dreams: everyone has one they like and wants to share it with others ... but no on gives a crap about your dream/chat session, because it was uniquely appealing to you, and not them.

Don't bore your co-workers (or others) with descriptions of your dreams, and don't throw a computer's dreams (AI chat logs) at them either.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#260

Post by grey-area »

nikeee wrote: post #187
grey-area wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...probably only makes it look like it took more effort than it actually did I think you've hit on why people would do this in a work environment. It's a low-effort way of looking like they're engaged at work and know what they're talking about.

I suspect that, too. But to me, it signals the exact opposite.

I know, I find it quite rude but luckily don’t work with people doing this.
Post reply on HN