I love the post but disagree with the first example. "I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said: ". That seems totally fine to me. The sender put work into the prompt and the user is free to read the AI output if they choose.
It's rude to show AI output to people
91–100 of 257 posts
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#92> For the longest time, writing was more expensive than reading. If you encountered a body of written text, you could be sure that at the very least, a human spent some time writing it down. The text used to have an innate proof-of-thought, a basic token of humanity.
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#93Not seeing a problem here as long as the one showing the output has reviewed it themselves before showing, and made the decision to show based on that review. That's what we should be advocating for. So far what I'm seeing is people slamming others or ignoring automatically on even the vague suspicion that something has been generated. Just the other day I witnessed in a chat someone commenting that another (who prev…
Thats a big if.
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#94I 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?
Seriously you should respond to the slop in the email and waste your coworkers time too.
“No I don’t need this formatted for Outlook Dave. Thanks for asking though!”
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#95I 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.
LinkedIn is probably the worst culprit. It has always been a wasteland of “corporate/professional slop”, except now the interface deliberately suggests AI-generated responses to posts. I genuinely cannot think of a worse “social network” than that hell hole. “Very insightful! Truly a masterclass in turning everyday professional rituals into transformative personal branding opportunities. Your ability to synergize aut…
> now the interface deliberately suggests AI-generated responses to posts
This feature absolutely defies belief. If I ran a social network (thank god I don't) one of my main worries would be a flood of AI skip driving away all the human users. And LinkedIn are encouraging it. How does that happen? My best guess is that it drives up engagement numbers to allow some disinterested middle managers to hit some internal targets.
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#96I 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?
[deleted]
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#97> "I vibe-coded this pull request in just 15 minutes. Please review" > > Well, why don't you review it first? 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…
Rather than close or ignore PRs, you should start a dialogue with them. Teach them that the AI is not a person, and if they contribute buggy or low quality code, it’s their responsibility, not the AIs, and ultimately their job on the line.
Another perspective I’ve found to resonate with people is to remind them — if you’re not reviewing the code or passing it through any type of human reasoning to determine its fit to solving the business problem - what value are you adding at all? If you just copy pasta through AI, you might as well not even be in the loop, because it’d be faster for me to do it directly, and have the context of the prompts as well.
This is a step change in our industry and an opportunity to mentor people who are misusing it. If they don’t take it, there are plenty of people who will. I have a feeling that AI will actually separate the wheat from the chaff, because right now, people can hide a lack of understanding and effort because the output speed is so low for everyone. Once those who have no issue with applying critical thinking and debugging to the problem and work well with the business start to leverage AI, it’ll become very obvious who’s left behind.
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
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…
I like to use em-dashes as well (option-shift-hyphen on my macbook). I've seen people try to prompt LLMs to not have em-dashes, I've been in forums where as soon as you type in an em-dash it will block the submit button and tell you not to use AI.
Here's my take: these forums will drive good writers away or at least discourage them, leaving discourses the worse for it. What they really end up saying — "we don't care whether you use an LLM, just remove the damn em-dash" — indicates it's not a forum hosting riveting discussions in the first place.
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#99I’m building a tool to help filter these kinds of low value articles out (especially the flow of constant AI negativity, but it will work for many topics). If you’re interested email me at linotype@fastmail.com and I’ll send you a link when it’s ready.
Re: It's rude to show AI output to people
#100> The only explanation is that something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message
How is this more plausible than the scrambler's own lack of knowledge of potential specifications for these messages?
In any case, there's obviously more explanations than the "coded nonsense" hypothesis.