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

441–450 of 453 posts

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#441

Post by butlike »

throwawee wrote: post #324
ethbr1 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The central issue is the bait and switch. The bait: here is a ton of text The historical implication: because there is a lot of it, I put a lot of thought and effort into writing it The new normal: there is ZERO signal about the magnitude of human thought and effort that went into something on the basis of its length ... and what really pisses people off about that: when AIstas intentionally abuse that social c…

>The historical implication: because there is a lot of it, I put a lot of thought and effort into writing it Really? That must be some ancient history, because I've seen rambling walls of text on the internet derided for decades. I always appreciated the Feynmanian respect for economy of time over traditional formats, where if authors said their piece but still had space they'd damn well fill it. (Of course, slide al…

Depends on if it's a non-formatted rant or not. Generally, traditionally, long form non-rant responses have been more thoughtful than not. This can no longer be assumed

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#442

Post by Kim_Bruning »

booleandilemma wrote: post #111

No no, let's just stop thinking entirely and paste conversations from LLMs back and forth to each other. Then we'll use an LLM to summarize the conversation to tell us what was said. Then we'll use an LLM to do what was said. Then we can ask an LLM if what was done works.

You're ha ha only serious describing some of the agent swarm concepts that are currently being built.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#443

Post by gck1 »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #230

This page rather reeks of LLM slop itself. If not…well I don't know what to call this style of writing exactly but I see it all the time on LinkedIn (or some annoying startup landing page) and it's very upsetting to me. "You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document." "Your wall of text suppresses dialogue. They can't reply, can't push back, can't clarify. It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness." "Let it sharpe…

It's also possible that this will become (or already has) a 'standard' writing style of humans. A style has to come from somewhere, and it would be most influenced by the style that you consume often.

People read this style for every single question that they ask nowadays.

Who knows, maybe watercooler chats will also start having higher occurence of the phrase "You're absolutely right" in the not so distant future.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#444

Post by yummypaint »

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…

There is something about the asymmetry of effort that is particularly galling. If a person couldn't be bothered to write something, then I can't be bothered to read it.

If someone contributes a software component, they are responsible for it whether they developed it properly or slop coded. The difference is that I will refuse to look at the slop, much less debug it or help with troubleshooting.

People who blindly copy paste from agents are completely replaceable, and should be at the top of the list when layoff season hits. They drag the whole org down.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#445

Post by FatherOfCurses »

SwiftyBug wrote: post #8

> Nobody writes essays in Slack I 100% write long texts in Slack. I always try to provide as much context as possible when reaching out to someone with a question or request.

Your co-workers must love staring at the "SwiftyBug is typing..." prompt for 15 minutes

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#447

Post by saurik »

idle_zealot wrote: post #261
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 choose to look at it like any other cultural communication difference There's a way to tell if this is actually the case: can you find the members of this culture that like getting slopgrenaded? A communication culture needs both speakers and listeners. I see the speakers, I have yet to see the listeners. I could just be missing them though. In the case that the listeners are greatly outnumbered by the speakers w…

> There's a way to tell if this is actually the case: can you find the members of this culture that like getting slopgrenaded? A communication culture needs both speakers and listeners. I see the speakers, I have yet to see the listeners. I could just be missing them though.

The people I know -- including myself -- who do this with each other actually don't mind it when people do this and even go so far as to read through the so-called slop... so, either I know a bunch of people who in fact are listeners, or the definition of the complaint needs to be refined?

FWIW, it isn't really that different from "here's a random Google result I found on the topic" or "here's a random comment I found on Hacker News"... if you don't paste it to the other person you can't have a shared discourse around it, as if we both ask the LLM we will get different answers.

And like, that is definitely something that is rude in many contexts: if I did not respond to your comment but just replied with a link to some other comment I clearly didn't read or bother to understand, that should make you angry. But, if I link you off to something I agree with, that's saving time.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#448

Post by low_tech_love »

throwawee wrote: post #324
ethbr1 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The central issue is the bait and switch. The bait: here is a ton of text The historical implication: because there is a lot of it, I put a lot of thought and effort into writing it The new normal: there is ZERO signal about the magnitude of human thought and effort that went into something on the basis of its length ... and what really pisses people off about that: when AIstas intentionally abuse that social c…

>The historical implication: because there is a lot of it, I put a lot of thought and effort into writing it Really? That must be some ancient history, because I've seen rambling walls of text on the internet derided for decades. I always appreciated the Feynmanian respect for economy of time over traditional formats, where if authors said their piece but still had space they'd damn well fill it. (Of course, slide al…

I understand what you mean and it’s not wrong, but still there is a contract that is being fulfilled: human in both ends. Whether it’s rambling or not, someone wrote it, and it represents a person’s idea of whatever is being discussed. That contract is now broken, but in an asymmetrical way, only one side gets to save time. My brain refuses to spend time reading crap that I don’t even know if someone even took time to prompt. Maybe they just wrote “give me something to post, whatever makes me look smart”. It’s just completely broke for me and makes me actually sick in the stomach when I read almost anything (textual uncanny valley?)

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#449

Post by ragequittah »

fortyseven wrote: post #244
SoftTalker wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's going to be exactly like Wikipedia on schools. People don't like me using AI for answers? Ok I'll use AI for the answer ask it to cite the source it used and then skim and paste the source. AI sti did all the work but the anti-ai crowd can't reflexively say it's probably wrong or a dream or whatever people are on about ITT.

Re: Throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations

#450

Post by whattheheckheck »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #431
whattheheckheck wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree robots do not have a race in the most literal, autistic interpetation of the sentence. It's the shape of the behavior. It translates from a primordial belief systems that enables someone to say its okay to position themselves above something. The word robot originates from the Czech term robotnik, meaning "forced worker," which is derived from robota, denoting forced labor or drudgery performed by feudal serf…

> Remember history? Its not okay to subjugate human beings? AI systems are not human beings. They also have no feelings. Despite the marketing, they have no agency. I position myself above inanimate objects. I position you, and everyone else, above them as well.

[dead]
Post reply on HN