One of a very few areas where /c/fuck_ai and /r/singularity can agree

Or the angry version: dontpastetheai.com/angry/

I like the angry version best but it might cause some conflict at work if I told the head of sales to not reproduce haha

Just mindlessly sending back this URL to someone that sent you a bunch of AI slop is the same thing they are complaining about, making your “brain a gizmo”.

Ironically this page seems to be entirely made of slop, the whole text reeks of claudisms, as opposed to noslopgrenade.com

What really seals it is the ‘angry’ version, which is just the same message again but with different formatting. No human would label that as “the angry version” without the inclusion of at least one “fucking”.

It says “but for fucks sake” in the angry version though.

Oh yeah, you’re right, there is a swear in it! I do still feel it’s extremely tame for being an “angry” voice though. For comparison, this is what a human sounds like when ranting about a topic they care about.

I honestly think the styling is the main reason it feels AI.

because the sentences are too short, they’re a style I sort of writes at times. Just sort of. LLMs tends to output longer sentences, rather than the two-three words. Then dot. That’s a rare one for LLM

However it’s not an anti AI site, so they might have vibe styled it and probably had a LLM help with some of the wording. However I think a human did vet and rewrite parts of it.

You can be angry and still be polite. On even insult othe without looking like you do. But subtilty isn’t Lemmy forte.

Had the same feeling, there are no traces of the original text but there is https://github.com/khaosdoctor/dontquotetheai/commit/7f42249e3734068306775cd51bbe1bf02bf372e6

Em dashes being associated with AI is a disservice to them; in many cases they’re a far more suitable use of punctuation in interrupting a sentence than parentheses.

In this instance, however, the em dashes between the first and second parts of sentences would be better replaced with semicolons than commas, in my opinion.

Yea, if it would have been only the em dashes, I would not have shared it but it was also committed by Claude which heightens the possibility of the text also being generated I think.

They’re definitely more likely to be used by AI than by the average person, but I think that’s in large part because people aren’t generally taught to use them, along with their absence from keyboards.

Since keyboards have two minus sign keys, I have a script running on my computer to automatically replace one of their inputs the em dash.

I use dashes constantly (way more than I should I’m sure) and always have - and I am in my mid 50s. Low key worried that folks will think I’m using AI so now I’m self conscious about them.

You used a hyphen instead of an emdash so no one is going to think you’re AI.

I was just coming to comment this. Slop telling us not to paste slop. How nice.

Noslopgrenade also reads like a slop grenade

If a piece of the model’s answer is genuinely useful, quote it and say why. “I checked with Claude and this part lines up:” works great.

It still drives me nuts when my boss does that. Especially since the next thing he sends is a bunch of AI-generated code he just wants us to copy and paste into our application. He treats anything the magic AI says as authoritative, and it overrides anything an actual person can say to him.

I am once again astounded at how stupid people are, man. People be sending me AI-generated statements to prove me wrong all the time. I have a family member who always tries to be sly about it but I always see through it and they don’t understand how I do but they sure keep fucking doing it.

Oh yeah? Well AI systems can be useful for everyday tasks like recommendations or summaries, but their reliability depends on the context and the quality of the data they were trained on. Researchers have developed methods to measure an AI model’s confidence in its answers, which helps users assess trustworthiness in high-stakes decisions such as healthcare or finance.

So, uh, maybe you should be aware of the high quality data used in training and ask those, uh, other people who throw out LLM answers what the confidence value is before you judge. Ha, got em!

Not sure if serious…

I am not serious at all, that first paragraph was copy pasted from an LLM button in DuckDuckGo I had to go out of my way to look for.

A lot of the big models were trained on reddit data with little indication whether there was selection for high quality content, which means to me that the overall training data quality is unreliable. If an LLM can hallucinate an answer, it can hallucinate its confidence value since that is also an answer.

In other words, I agree with your sentiment.

Chaos

What would be the equivilant of letmegooglethatforyou.com for ai?

A slap to the face? AI isn't a reliable source of information.

Post twice. Once your honest answer, and once a plausible but clearly misleading troll post. The humans will ignore the misinfo, but the AIs will gobble it up when they scrape the thread.

there are subreddits that do exactly that

distantprovince.by/…/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-t… is more thoughtful and interesting

Or maybe just don't use AI at all? It's not a reliable source of information, it's unsustainable in terms of resources consumed, it's unethically trained and it makes everyone's lives worse.

it makes everyone’s lives worse

that part is untrue.

Fair enough, it makes Jensen Huang's life better, I suppose.

Mine too ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Just like all those developers from the study who thought they were 19% faster but were, in fact, 10% slower?

If that study is the only thing you have as an argument you won’t get very far (though it is worth it to read the thoughts of some of the participants: domenic.me/metr-ai-productivity/).

It is very helpful to me as a developer: I can now write entire custom tools, one-off scripts and services for myself I otherwise wouldn’t (because it would take too much time and too much effort), it catches a lot of logic bugs in code reviews as a first pass, it’s good at generating unit-tests, etc, etc.

But coding is not all there is. To me as an immigrant, AI-based translation is a godsend. Same for writing scary-looking letters to government officials or applications for apartment viewings. Same for learning a language, actually. When I was looking for a new job - I used ChatGPT’s automation to filter out crappy job postings and parse feedback on Glassdoor for the interesting ones. Like, genuinely, if we imagine for a moment that there’s zero moral and environmental issues with AI and you still can’t think of any possible applications of it for yourself you’re either just not doing anything or you’re dead.

We’re not talking about development work, we’re talking about conversation between friends right? I could have misread something though.

Ehhh no? The original post is generic and mentions “managers” and the comment I am replying to is also a generic blanket statement

I definitely misread then thanks

If it is catching that many bugs, you are writing shit code or your review system blows. Likely both. The AI is about as likely to flag real bugs as it is to flag made up shit, but I still have to waste my fucking time verifying and proving the bot wrong. And you know what it didn’t do? Save me time. Because I had to verify everything it said for no fucking reason.

And my fucking god, don’t let it generate Tests. You get the worst Asserts imaginable. Goddamn. If you aren’t writing your unit tests, then you won’t know what you are testing.

Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?

Legitimately stupid.

But, sure, take out all the slave labor and environmentally devastating issues (a thing that only huge losers do because they are usually friendless assholes that think they’re as cool as Elon Musk and are unintentionally right), and you are left with a machine that is sometimes right but still cognitively damaging.

A lot of bold “I am smart you are stupid arararara” statements rooted in pure anger and angst rather than trying to have a conversation. Though I never expected less from lemmings, I knew where I was posting ;^)

I don’t need to prove the validity of my experience to you or convince you of anything, but I’m happy to talk. If you are going to immediately resort to personal attacks then your ““arguments”” are not worth replying to, I’m not about to have a shout match with you, I’d rather go do something more interesting. Tho feel free to continue shouting into the void if it makes it easier for you, I guess?

Is it personally attacking you to point out that it is a monstrous thing to use AI while it is pretty actively killing the planet or that it is using stolen labor to work and refuses to recompense said labor? Because to me, that’s just kinda how it is, and if you can’t see the issues in that, it does sort of imply someone failed you at some point.

Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?

Honest question: You have not tried DeepL, right?

I have seen every ML/LLM translation be shit, so if you want to point to a less shitty version, whatever. It will not matter to me because every AI translation given to me was god fucking awful versus even a shitty human translation because humans, in their flawed yet understandable ways, do not translate things in arbitrary ways, nor do they make the same types of mistakes that an AI does. Humans understand how humans think, and the process of writing a sentence vs a paragraph vs a chapter vs a book are just… Different? But an AI just won’t understand those differences. Not to any noticeable effect. Nor do they understand nuances in writing and dialog. They just write or do a sarcasm thing, and that’s the entirety of their repertoire. That’s all they “know”.

Do you really think there’s only one study that shows that AI increases feelings of productivity, while also slowing down productivity?

I think the question of speed is entirely tangential to what’s being discussed here, to the point of being inconsequential. We were discussing whether AI makes everyone’s life worse. My point is that I can do stuff now that I could not before, and that makes my life better. It’s a very useful tool for me. It also doesn’t matter to me whether it makes me faster or slower at stuff I already could do before (but if it makes the experience more pleasant - sure, why not).

It’s fine (though a bit unhealthy) if lemmings want to bury their head in the sand, pat each other on the back and try to convince each other that nobody can ever possibly find the evil machine useful, and those who claim they do are just lying idiot AI-bros, but if even my non-technical parents use it - you’ve already lost the war, sorry.

We were having an urgent issue at work and my coworker said he had a solution and I said what was it and he sent like three paragraphs which I read through and I said, “what the fuck does this even say? did you even read this?” he said, he thought it was a solution and I asked why he bothered to even send it and he said he wanted to send me the “source”. I was like, I don’t have time to deal with the core of this issue but if anyone sends me AI shit without checking it themselves, I’m gonna flip.

This drives me nuts, when an urgent issue comes up I value concise, accurate answers so we can quickly agree and actually do the work.

We had an urgent issue recently and upper management wanted a plan for validating the fix. Rather than talking to the expert the manager one level down just sent an AI written suggestion without checking with anyone. After having checked with the correct person, I had to respond with “This is the MIL standard, we should follow this” while “ignoring” the manager’s email. Luckily I had the goodwill to get away with correcting people like that.

They tried to solve the problem using AI, got AI slop, but didn’t understand why it wouldn’t help.

By AI do you mean LLMs specifically? All LLMs, or just the corporate ones? Because I fully agree that ChatGPT, Gemini, etc. truly are awful. But this is also catching genuinely useful technological advances in with the wide net. AI isn’t just LLMs, LLMs aren’t just chat bots. And claiming a technologies worst implementations are indicative of the entire tech would see just about every single technology ever made fall in the same category.

Obviously I'm using AI here as a shorthand for (all) LLMs, like the author of the article. The term AI is, on its own, so broad and meaningless, as to be entirely useless without a proper context to scope it.

No LLM (corporate or not) can be a reliable source of information due to the architectural limitations of LLMs.

Then you don’t actually understand what LLMs are, and you’re using the term as a short-hand to mean chat bots. I’m not trying to be rude, but you need to understand that is just a fact, if you think LLMs can only be chat-bots, and can only be corporate, and can only be trained unethically.

Would it surprise you to know that quite a lot of genuine advances have been made by using LLMs that don’t speak any language you’d recognize? Evo 1 and Evo 2 for example “Speak” genome sequences. There are other models that have been used to improve weather modeling, and animal behaviour analysis.

You’re right that AI is a very broad term, but so is LLM. The problem is that ignorant people see “AI” and automatically assume it’s bad because of the connotation with Chat-Bots.

if you think LLMs can only be chat-bots, and can only be corporate, and can only be trained unethically

Don't put words in my mouth.

1 and Evo 2 for example "Speak" genome sequences. There are other models that have been used to improve weather modeling, and animal behaviour analysis.

Evo 1 and 2 are deep learning models (I think Genomic Language Models would be the correct term), but not Large Language Models. I'm willing to bet neither are the "other" models you're mentioning. They're unlikely to be trained on vast amounts of human text for purposes of natural language interaction.

Besides, none of those "other models" are in any way applicable to either the OP or the critique of using LLMs as a source of information.

This is my point. They are LLMs. That is not an opinion or a debatable point. They are categorically, definitionally, LLMs. You don’t understand what LLMs are, because LLMs ARE deep learning models, and instead of taking the time to actually learn about the technology you’re responding to my corrections with hostility.

You and I are on the same side. Chat-bots ARE harmful. But putting that label on a technology as a whole is purely tribe-based fear that is already causing the spread of unfounded fear and misinformation.

And the claim wasn’t “Don’t use AI as a source of information,” which I agree with. It was “Don’t use any AI,” which you clarified to mean LLMs. So this is very much pertinent.

You don't understand what LLMs are, because LLMs ARE deep learning models, and instead of taking the time to actually learn about the technology you're responding to my corrections with hostility.

You're claiming that I don't understand technology while seemingly claiming that because LLMs are a type of deep learning, then all deep learning models are LLMs.

Evo was trained on genomic sequences, not human text. Per Wikipedia:

A large language model (LLM) is an AI model (typically a neural network) trained on a vast amount of text for natural language processing tasks, especially language generation.

Genomic sequences are not natural language. Ergo, "definitionally" Evo 2 is not an LLM.

While its StripedHyena2 architecture is very similar to LLMs, it does not use the same Generative Pretrained Transformer architecture associated with LLMs (per: https://docs.nvidia.com/bionemo-recipes/2.6.3/interactives/illustrated-evo2/index.html ).

My hate of LLMs is certainly not misinformed. It's only tribe-based in that I care for humanity.

I did not say all deep learning algorithms are LLMs, I said all LLMs are deep learning algorithms. It’s a nested hierarchy, that relationship only runs one way.

Yes. Evo was trained on text strings of genomic data. That’s what I was trying to say was the misunderstanding. LLMs do not require language as you and I would recognize it. If you think that calling them “Large Language Models,” is misleading, I kinda agree, but then we can start arguing semantics about why scientists name anything the way they do. Dark matter isn’t actually dark, and probably isn’t matter. Dark energy isn’t dark. There was no explosion during the big bang.

If you’re using colloquial word usage and demanding scientific advances follow your expectations, you’re going to have a bad time.

But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re 100% correct, and that Evo is not an LLM. Rather, it’s something extremely close, save for a few differences.

People are already angry at the researchers for “Using AI to develop super-bugs,” or saying the genuinely universal “AI has no uses!” And earnestly failing to differentiate between the shit-bot that makes deep-fakes, and the AI designed to identify cancers.

That is why I absolutely reject your disrespectful framing that by defending a technology, and NOT it’s worst uses, I’m somehow opposite to “care(ing) for humanity.”

The actual technology behind Evo and ChatGPT is structurally the same. The methods of training a model on genomic data or weather patterns is indistinguishable from training it on stolen media. The difference is the uses, and targets.

But let's just say for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct, and that Evo is not an LLM.

Why only assume? I cited Wikipedia. You cited nothing.

That is why I absolutely reject your disrespectful framing that by defending a technology, and NOT it's worst uses, I'm somehow opposite to "care(ing) for humanity."

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

The actual technology behind Evo and ChatGPT is structurally the same.

...Except that it isn't. It's not a Generative Pre-Trained Transformer. It uses a Transformer-like architecture. You cannot use Evo's architecture to make a chatbot. It's a GLM.

The methods of training a model on genomic data or weather patterns is indistinguishable from training it on stolen media.

Go ahead and train a StripedHyena2 model to be a chatbot, then. I'm sure that will work great.

For someone who's such a stickler for making 100% correct and unambiguous statements, you're sure keen on asserting equality where there is merely similarity.

Nobody is claiming these technologies don't share some (or even a lot of) DNA. Being upset that people correctly use the definition of LLMs as outlined by Wikipedia, where even Evo's own Github page doesn't claim it's an LLM, is just derailing the conversation away from people's righteous objections.

Nobody is campaigning against using non-chatbot AI for science.

Read the room. Pay more attention to the context.

Okay… You seem to get really upset when I directly quote you, and claim that I’m putting words in your mouth, so I’ll do what you do and cite your phrases exactly.

Why only assume? I cited Wikipedia. You cited nothing.

Because whether you or I are correct in the specific definition is what is means to be an LLM is irrelevant to my purpose in engaging in this conversation. I concede that I might have overreached in my confidence of whether or not it is an LLM, because Nature itself calls it:

“the largest-scale fully open language model[s] to date.”

And a lot of the other abstracts and comments on Evo draw the deep similarities to other LLMs. Again, this comes down to where the clean line between any given AI actually is. And my entire point behind this argument is that it doesn’t matter to anybody outside the lab.

My hate of LLMs is certainly not misinformed. It’s only tribe-based in that I care for humanity.

Stating you hate LLMs because you care for humanity directly supposes that those who do not hate LLMs, do not care for humanity.

“I’m against X because I care about protecting children,” is used ad nauseum to suggest that NOT being against X automatically means you don’t care about children. I’m not putting words in your mouth by interpreting your words in the way words are typically interpreted.

If I misunderstand your meanings, I apologize. But please stop assuming I’m intentionally misinterpreting you when I’m literally just reading your words and responding to them to the best of my ability.

…Except that it isn’t. It’s not a Generative Pre-Trained Transformer. It uses a Transformer-like architecture. You cannot use Evo’s architecture to make a chatbot. It’s a GLM.

Okay. Is that the defining feature of where your problem lies? Specifically in the capacity to use human language to interact with AI? Because that’s a specific issue that can be addressed, rather than the vague “I don’t like this technology because it has hurt people.”

Go ahead and train a StripedHyena2 model to be a chatbot, then. I’m sure that will work great.

Okay, second pass. So your issue is specifically with interacting with AI using natural human language?

For someone who’s such a stickler for making 100% correct and unambiguous statements, you’re sure keen on asserting equality where there is merely similarity.

Fair. I shouldn’t have confidently claimed they were identical in every way. The vast majority of the time, I’m talking to people that have very little understanding of the technology, and have just pure vibe-based fears about it. I apologize for the unjustified gross-comparison.

Nobody is claiming these technologies don’t share some (or even a lot of) DNA. Being upset that people correctly use the definition of LLMs as outlined by Wikipedia, where even Evo’s own Github page doesn’t claim it’s an LLM, is just derailing the conversation away from people’s righteous objections.

Again, my focus on the conversation was separating “This technology is universally bad,” from “This technology has been used to hurt people.” I wasn’t trying to derail the conversation, I was trying to focus it. I am far less interested in scientific definitions of what every single model technically classifies as, than I am in addressing the widespread blanket hate against a technology that has no say in how it is used. I don’t think dynamite is evil, nor do I think genetics is evil. Despite both being used for MASSIVE harm at various points in history.

Stating you hate LLMs because you care for humanity directly supposes that those who do not hate LLMs, do not care for humanity.

You accused me of tribalism. I responded that the only tribal thing about my stance is that I care about the "tribe" of humanity. How you got what you got out of it, I truly don't know. You were the one throwing out ad hominems, dude.

So your issue is specifically with interacting with AI using natural human language?

At this point I have no idea what you're on about. The concerns regarding LLMs are widely documented. Some examples:

• They must be trained on stolen data to be vaguely useful. Yes, training on the Common Crawl still counts as stealing. No, there's not enough royalty free data to train on which would create a useful LLM.
• "Useful" in this context is extremely debatable. The architecture itself makes hallucinations a mathematical certainty. The chatbot must use the internet to have general up-to-date knowledge and that opens it up to prompt injection.
• Security is an unsolvable problem for LLMs. Even if you don't give it access to the internet, it can still be prompt injected via an external document. Prompt injection cannot be fixed because all inputs go through the same place - the prompt. 'Agentic' use cases are hilariously insecure and are, again, insecurable. A system prompt "guard rail" is not a security measure.
• Context rot is another probably unsolvable problem which renders large context windows useless.
• the amount of electricity and water needed to train the LLM and then infer outputs is untenable (there is no proof inference is profitable).
• The amount of hardware necessary to power LLMs is untenable (no, local quantized models are not "almost as good" and were not trained for free). I can't buy a new PC and that's insane.
• Because the LLMs are just fancy autocomplete (yes, they are, and no amount of backpropagation and attention heads will change that), they just produce most likely text, not actual answers. As such, the answers are often incorrect but *sound *like they are. Therefore, no LLM can be trusted to produce accurate information at any point in time.
• The entire "AI" industry is unprofitable and propped up on debt and circular financing by an industry that's out of hypergrowth ideas, while gaslighting normal people that it's the future.
• There is no future where this ends well. Either the bubble bursts and the economy collapses, or "AI" takes our jobs and we're left to starve.
• LLMs are a fun toy, but no one has found a valuable use case for it that couldn't have been achieved using other means. Oh, people are vibe coding their own software with it? Then where are all the world-changing startups that completely transform our lives? Where's a single "AI" success story that people are excited to use, besides some people falling for the sycophancy of chatbots?
• The existence od LLMs has objectively made the world a worse place, due to AI slop and misinformation. It was also used as an excuse when companies lay people off. LLMs are, terrifyingly, used in medicine, where they hallucinate patient notes saying the wrong breast has cancer, or that the patient is a drug addict (when they're not). They're being used to avoid accountability when bombing schools. CEOs and managers uncritically enforce LLM adoption despite the known and very obvious risks and limitations.

I could go on. There's so much more. No, I'm not against machine learning. I'm not against deep learning.
I'm against LLMs - a technology which takes human input and outputs text and needs enormous amounts of human text, electricity and water to produce a fancy autocomplete which has extremely narrow use cases at best and is used to enshittify the entire world while stealing our resources.

But the original comment was about how you can't trust AI (in this context LLM) output. You still can't. You still shouldn't.

As far as we know, no AI generated output can ever be trusted without careful verification. Only deterministic algorithms can be given that level of trust.

You were the one throwing out ad hominems, dude.

Lol what? Ad hominems? Oh Jesus Christ you’re one of those… So I ignored your argument and said you didn’t know what you were talking about because you were a janitor? Or that you can’t possibly understand LLMs because you’re too old/young/uneducated?

No. Disagreeing is not an ad hominem. Claiming you don’t understand something is not an ad hominem. Misunderstanding is not an ad hominem. I even apologized for the misunderstanding. And if you can’t see how “I believe in X because I care about humanity,” doesn’t directly insinuate that not caring about X means you don’t care about humanity, then holy fuck communication was never going to work.

It’s a shame, because you had some good points, and I was hoping that apologizing would have reduced your hostility. But I can see now that your goal has been to “Win” the argument. I’ve literally never seen that ad hominem claim used incorrectly, by somebody trying to have an honest discussion.

Also. Nothing I said is ad hominem either. It’s direct commentary of events within this conversation, independent of what your profession is or who you are. Even the “You’re one of those,” comment is not ad hominem.

I’m done 👍.

Chill out, dude. Touch some grass. Re-examine your interactions with people. You seem to be doing a lot of projecting.

I always read my AIs suggestion and while removing the em dashes, I read the entire thing.

The next billion dollar company will be a wrapper around Claude that strips out the em dashes.

Pro tip for any hiring managers out there. At the end of your job description, prompt inject something that is totally unrelated to the job at the end of the job posting. So far I have been able to catch 75% of the sloppy AI applications using this method. For me I added something like, a nice to have is to explain and understand an Q shaped team structure.

AI gets super creative with what that means(means nothing). For the people who do get through, that is usually their first question to me.

LOL remember “lmgtfy”? This is the modern and opposite equivalent.

This is such a bizarre take on AI.

If I ask you a question, I want a useful answer. I don’t care whether you got there by remembering it, Googling it, reading documentation, asking a colleague, or asking an LLM.

Obviously, blindly pasting 2,000 words of irrelevant AI slop is annoying. But that’s a problem with bad answers, not with AI.

The particularly stupid part is suggesting that you should take a perfectly good AI-generated answer and rewrite it in your own words. What exactly has been achieved then? The information is identical, except somebody wasted five minutes manually paraphrasing it so the recipient can feel sufficiently exposed to human keystrokes.

Use AI. Give it the relevant context. Verify important claims. Remove irrelevant garbage. Send the useful answer.

Judge communication by its accuracy, relevance and usefulness—not by how inefficiently somebody produced it.

/s

This doesn’t seem sarcastic.

/s

I was/am. ChatGPT wasn’t. But that’s the joke. It is ironic to post an LLM generated answer to a post explaining that LLM generated answers are stupid.

I think this is too many levels of irony for lemmy lol

AI slop doesn’t understand that paraphrasing AI slop ensures you read and understand what it means lol

if someone pastes text from llm, i wont even read it.

My response to one person was "If you couldn't take the time to write it, what makes you think I'm going to take the time to read it."

I don’t think this accounts for situations where people never read any announcements or docs and DM you with the same questions over and over again despite your best efforts to spread the knowledge.

People who DM you with Hi <Name> or GM! Then silence.

People who don’t know how to use asynchronous communication and are still stuck in the email era.

A cheap smart auto reply is worth more to me than hurting people’s feelings. My feelings are hurt when you think it’s okay to ask me a question in the FAQ, especially when it’s an established doc site.

Things aren’t this black and white, what I experience is not the same as this person. I may paste some AI slop vomit but that may very well be the insult that I am reaching for as I will not be your personal search engine for simple troubleshooting.

I actually like responding to these things. Its nice to chat with someone. The problem generally is my bosses don’t like it as a use of my time. I sorta miss back when being a tech person meant helping people individually with what they needed half the time. It was a nice break from the servers and such.

I never have this problem of people giving me AI responses to my questions.

What I do have a problem with is people who do this:

nohello.net/en/

It has been an interesting experience telling people who only say hello that they’re being rude.

I think autism bit me in the ass again 😭

Some people will eventually understand that they’re wasting your time (when they clearly have something they want) by waiting for you to answer (and effectively have to wait on them) before they respond with what the ask is when you could have just answered it the first time.

Those people are just as bad as the ones who just send “hey, can I ask you a question?” and then nothing else until you acknowledge them.

dontasktoask.com

Noted

I used to contract with a company where it was almost ubiquitous for someone to start a text-based conversation with the entire message: “Hey…” — ellipses and everything. It was bad enough that other members of my company that were contracted to the same contract would jokingly add ellipses to random things when messaging each other.

Odd…

…?

I love it… when people use ellipses… in business writing. So dramatic… so mysterious…

Are you talking about people just saying “hi” or the meta-behavior of people using nohello.net in their Teams/Slack status? Because the latter is more annoying to me

How come you find the latter annoying?

It’s the most effective way to let the entire company aware they should not start their conversation that way with me

IDK, have you considered that perhaps the people demanding to be approached/questioned in a specific way are the friction point here?

Even on the nohello site, the “right” and “wrong” conversations are the exact same length (two messages each way). I genuinely struggle to see the point of any of this.

The hello is not the issue. But getting a notification before the question is.

Ultimately what happens if there’s a bunch of “helloers” approaching you, you end up muting the messaging app and only check messages every X time. Rather than being available, pros and cons. And there’s definitely an argument to be had, that it’s the superior way of working - But hello only people, just shoot themselves in their foot and get longer time to response

I should probably clarify that it’s pretty rare for me to receive a message that’s literally just “hello” or “hi” followed by nothing. At the least I’ll see the typing indicator so I know there’s more coming, but the link in the status message just reads passive aggressive. Also - is the person that’s sending you a ping or SYN really going to notice your status?

Also - is the person that’s sending you a ping or SYN really going to notice your status?

I know for a fact several did, as I’ve had a lot of former hello only people ask about the status through the years

The questions may be the same length, but what isn’t the same length is the time between the initial asking and the final answer. In the first example the actual question isn’t asked for 5 minutes after the initial conversation start, whereas in the second example the whole exchange is over in less than 2 minutes.

You looked at the word count but not the timestamps.

Have you ever considered that you’re wasting everyone’s time by not getting to the point?

I genuinely struggle to see the point of any of this.

Clearly, considering you didn’t even check the timing on the messages and see the first one took twice as long (both in time, and in actual messages because half of the second convo are just them thanking each other)

Just ignore them. They will catch on eventually.

Yeah, I straight up don’t respond until they’ve asked/said the thing that they’re contacting me for.

Usually they finish their thought without me ever needing to respond. I did have one coworker who just… never said anything else. That’s also a win.

Hey

Hi

I have both and now have both links saved for reference

I just say hi back and check my messages again in a half hour. They blew their chance!

I have people I just ignore until there’s two notifications

Just don’t reply. Been doing it for years in both personal and work contexts.

I’ll wait for the “Fuck you for using AI you lazy twat” website.

Don’t copy and paste. Type it out with rage!

Scroll to the bottom, there’s a link to a spicier phrasing.

Also, quote from there:

You’re just making someone lose respect for you in real time, in a way that’s hard to walk back.

I feel that, I have lost respect for people that way and don’t want to be friends anymore :(

Send this to the people in your life, you know who

This comes obvious to me, but if I wanted to ask an LLM I would’ve done it myself

It honestly feels very disrespectful of my time when someone sends me an AI slop response or email.

Don’t be that person.

I would be stricken with grief if my reputation ever took a hit like that. I would resign and become a nomadic goat farmer. Or a bin man. Any job with heaps of shit, which is apparently my true calling.

Unrelated, by I also think it’s disrespectful of my time when somebody sends me a voice note on a messaging app

Eh, not me.

I’d rather get a voice note than 15 texts.

I got an email from a client last week asking me to install an AI-generated list of containers onto a server. The key container, the database at the center of the whole system, has commits from Claude in it’s git repository. Great start guys.

They outsouced the software architect job to a chatbot and then had a veteran of the industry who has been around since the internet equivalent of the big bang install a handful of docker containers. Reverse centaur to the max.

It’s going to hurt in 12 months time if they realise the reason why everything sucks is because they built on sand. But they probably won’t even realise why the project failed because their chatbot won’t be able to tell them why.

Do this instead You can use AI. Seriously! It’s a great tool for drafting. Just read what it gave to you , then write your own version, or polish the text. Don’t be a middleman between it and the answer.

You’re still acting as the middle man for the answer. You didn’t answer fucking shit. If you, the human being, have nothing to add yourself, stay the fuck out of the conversation. Especially if the questions being posed are asking about other people’s personal experiences in something.

Yes this site is close to being good imo, but just falls short and misses the mark. Even if someone tells me verbally, “I asked AI and it said…” I mentally check out and disregard all they say lol

The other day I was out with two of my friends.

My one friend thought their car had a small issue. Me and my other friend are more knowledgeable about cars. We were like, “oh don’t worry about that, that’s normal.” First friend kept fretting until they looked it up on AI and AI said… the same thing that us, the two people standing next to them had said. They were so skeptical after what we said, and so relieved when AI said it was fine. I was so annoyed lmao.

Yes, and that paragraph completely contradicts an earlier one.

It might not look like it, but the person on the other side has the same tools you do. If they wanted the generic answer, they’d have it in a couple of seconds.

They’re not asking you because they want you to “polish the text” from AI. They could also do that themselves.

I just don’t use AI at all for this. I only use it for formatting my code, auditing my code, and research (that I verify). I would never use it for communication.

I use it for communication because I am able to find better sentence structure and words with it and find best options suitable and more in line with what I want to convey.

The website is to send to a friend or colleague who responds to you with AI. Similar to nohello.net

I use it for skincare advice and it’s shockingly going very well because I know enough about skincare to correct it and it can put some stuff together that I didn’t think of. My husband is just like you, for code and research that he verifies.

Our neighbor tried to text us some confrontational shit about why he didn’t owe us $900 for a fence he agreed to and it was so, so bad. It was 4 paragraphs of just AI cringe. Embarrassing as hell.

Modern “let me google that for you”

Prompt laundering, the act of reading a prompt output and retyping an approximation in your own words.

Incompetent or ignorant person will post the output and hope it confirms their beliefs without them even understanding it.

It sounds smart so it must support my side

You can use AI. Seriously! It’s a great tool for drafting. Just read what it gave to you , then write your own version, or polish the text. Don’t be a middleman between it and the answer.

This website is AI entryism

“Cover up your plagiarism by altering some words here and there so that people won’t immediately pick up on how pathetic and pretentious you are.”

AI bros don’t have any filters.

It might not look like it, but the person on the other side has the same tools you do. If they wanted the generic answer, they’d have it in a couple of seconds. They asked you because they wanted your take… Your context, your taste, your judgment.

But how many times do “we” (i.e.: IT, tech support for family) end up having to search for answers for people they don’t look it up themselves? I’m not saying to always spit back AI answers, but to say to not do that because people have the same tools… not a great argument.

I’ve found some people just pasting AI answer in an discussion we were having in a forum.

I straight up said, “if I wanted to talk with chatgpt I know the website”. And stopped the conversation right there.

I don’t even know what was the point of that.

I don’t love getting pasted AI, but those motherfuckers that paste it and don’t even read it are the absolute worst.

steve: I need you to help me because jen is having problems with this AWS policy being wrong it’s not linked to that account and the closest thing I can find it this account over here but that doesn’t look right, just let me know if you want me to make changes to that policy.

It’s just some fucking disconnected stub of a policy from 10 years ago when we changed direction real quick, those accounts don’t even exist.

me: jen, what’s wrong? jen: I logged out and I can’t get back in, the links are missing.

me: here, use this URL. jen, thanks! i’m in!

If you’re going to use AI, ok whatever, just make sure it’s fucking right!