71–80 of 257 posts
I really wish some of my coworkers would stop using LLMs to write me emails or even Teams messages. It does feel extremely rude, to the point I don't even want to read them anymore.
Even worse when they accidently leave in the dialog with the AI. Dead giveaway. I got an email from a colleague the other day and at the bottom was this line: > Would you like me to format this for Outlook or help you post it to a specific channel or distribution list?
I really wish some of my coworkers would stop using LLMs to write me emails or even Teams messages. It does feel extremely rude, to the point I don't even want to read them anymore.
one of my reports started responding to questions with AI Slop. I asked if he was actually writing those sentences (he wasn't), so I gave him that exact feedback - it felt to me like he wasn't even listening, when he clearly jut copy-pasted clearly AI responses. Thankfully he stopped doing it.
Of course as models get better at writing, it'll be harder and harder to tell. IMO the people who stand to lose the most are the AI sloppers, in that case - like in the South Park episode, as they'll get lost in commitments and agreements they didn't even know they made.
It's deeply sad to me that I will never again be able to read a message from someone and know, for sure, that it was written by them themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. What a good giveaway. I wonder what others there are. I occasionally use bullet points, emdashes (unicode, single, and double hyphens) and words like "delve". I hate it think these are the new heuristics. I think AI is a useful tool (especially image and video models), but I've already had folks (on HN [1]!) call out my fully artisanal comments as LLM-generated. It's almost as annoying as getting low-effort LLM…
Maybe I'm misunderstanding - but I don't think LLM's say cow-orkers. Or is that what you mean?
Might be incorrectly saved in some spell check software and occasionally rearing it's head
Just the other day I witnessed in a chat someone commenting that another (who previously sent an AI summary of something) had sent a "block of text" which they wouldn't read because it was too much, then went to read it when they were told it was from Quora, not generated. It was a wild moment for me, and I said as much.
The author was thinking "boring and uninteresting" but settled on the word "rude." No, it's not rude. Emailing your co-workers provactive political memes or telling someone to die in a fire is rude. Using ChatGPT to write and being obvious about it marks you as an uninteresting person who may not know what they are talking about. On the other hand, emailing your prompt and the result you got can be instructive to oth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. What a good giveaway. I wonder what others there are. I occasionally use bullet points, emdashes (unicode, single, and double hyphens) and words like "delve". I hate it think these are the new heuristics. I think AI is a useful tool (especially image and video models), but I've already had folks (on HN [1]!) call out my fully artisanal comments as LLM-generated. It's almost as annoying as getting low-effort LLM…
Give away for what, old farts? That link contains a comment citing the jargon file which in turn says that the term is an old Usenet meme.
Such a great point and one which I hadn't considered. With LLMs, we've flipped this equation, and it's having all sorts of weird consequences. Most obviously for me is how much more time I'm spending on code reviews. Its massively increased the importance of making the PR as digestible as possible for the reviewer, as now both author and reviewer are much closer to equal understanding of the changes compared to if the author had written the PR solely by themselves. Who knows what other corollaries there are to this reversal of reading vs writing
My current day to day problem is that, the PRs don't come with that disclaimer; The authors won't even admit if asked directly. Yet I know my comments on the PR will be fed to the cursor so it makes more crappy edits, and I'll be expecting an entirely different PR in 10 minutes to review from scratch without even addressing the main concern. I wish I could at least talk to the AI directly.
(If you're wondering, it's unfortunately not in my power right now to ignore or close the PRs).
While I understand this sentiment, some people simply suck at writing nice emails or have a major communication issue. It’s also not bad to run your important emails through multiple edits via AI.