You must log in or register to comment.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Modern “let me google that for you”
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.
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.
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.
Prompt laundering, the act of reading a prompt output and retyping an approximation in your own words.
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, 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.
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.
It honestly feels very disrespectful of my time when someone sends me an AI slop response or email.
Don’t be that person.
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 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.
Ironically this page seems to be entirely made of slop, the whole text reeks of claudisms, as opposed to https://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.
You can be angry and still be polite. On even insult othe without looking like you do. But subtilty isn’t Lemmy forte.
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.
I was just coming to comment this. Slop telling us not to paste slop. How nice.
Noslopgrenade also reads like a slop grenade
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 with an 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 mean, to be fair, if I have to extend something to meet a word minimum I naturally ramble like a bot just filling it up with pointless junk.
Why I did so much better in “business writing” at uni, they rarely gave me minimums, only the need for usable content that met the criteria for a proper answer.
Yeah, but “Here’s what you just did” and the “What you sent instead says:” and especially the “The whole thing. Yes, even the bullets. Especially the bullets.”
You know, this person might just be naturally talking like an AI, especially if they’re using it all the time. They did say they weren’t anti AI after all.
Could be
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:
Just don’t reply. Been doing it for years in both personal and work contexts.
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
It has been an interesting experience telling people who only say hello that they’re being rude.
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.
I think autism bit me in the ass again 😭
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.
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.
I love it… when people use ellipses… in business writing. So dramatic… so mysterious…
Odd…
…?
I have both and now have both links saved for reference
Hey
Hi
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.
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)
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.
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
Noted
Personally “I checked with Claude” invalidates anything you just said, even if it was properly researched and legitimately correct. As soon as you invoke the slopbots I lose any regard for your answer.
This is the reason why you simply don’t tell anyone that you have used AI… it’s the same if you researched Wikipedia or your grandpas 1950s copy of Encyclopedia Britannica: It simply doesn’t matter where you got your information from as long as it is valid
It’s basically the “appeal to authority” fallacy only worse because Claude is neither an authority nor a provider of hard info.
Nor appealing!
Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?
Because we don’t see all that research, we just see a comment where you said you asked the hallucination machine, so now, if I want to use anything you said, I have to go duplicate all that research before I can trust it.
That’s true regardless of the sources someone used.
Yeah, but the only source explicitly provided in this hypothetical is the hallucination machine.
Well I like to at least allude to my source if it’s not common knowledge
So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.
Which is valid. But is not what you said.
More accurately, if you claim you used Claude, I will assume absolutely anything produced with it has a high chance of being rife with errors. If you provided citations for every last detail and then said Claude put it together, I wouldn’t trust it until I’ve personally verified the sources because not only will it hallucinate details, it’ll hallucinate sources. Anything produced with it is inherently untrustworthy.
To add on to what you said, i would trust the same thing more if it was just a human saying it was correct and implicitly staking their reputation on it, vs if the same person said, “i checked with Claude and it agreed.”
To me, this means the person turned off their brain and is invoking Claude’s reputation, which also means i shouldn’t trust that person’s judgment either.
As the one says above it is “Appeal to Authority” by adding Claude, or ChatrGPT for the more base level folks, from what I have seen.
Somehow they assume that putting that in will somehow make their words more valid, but hearing it makes me question everything, and dismiss potential valid points made alongside it.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I read it as meaning the definition of the person producing the content of “properly researched and legitimately correct” rather than one’s own.
Content produced by somebody who claims it has been “properly researched and legitimately correct” and that person thinks Claude is a proper research and validation tool, should be treated as invalid until proven otherwise.
It’s like when a Junior level professional comes to you with something and says “I made sure this is all correct” - one can’t really trust that the thing is indeed “all correct”.
Right. They MEANT “if you mention Claude I don’t trust anything else you said”.
They just didn’t SAY that.
I’m not a fan of AI and don’t use it - however I can’t say I have found humans to be particularly clear, accurate or reliable either. Myself included… we all make mistakes. 🙂
Because upvotes
You are so right.
I checked with Claude
You guys are the worst. I’m now convinced all of you complaining have nothing going on. Every industry is using this shit. I was just watching this video of a big musician YouTuber using a vibe coded app that lets you create guitar tones by what you tell it. Kojima did an ad with Prada using it. You can be the curmudgeon all you fucking want but go do it to the big guys and quit fighting this bullshit culture war against low hanging fruit. You miserable fucks.
Every industry is using this shit.
So I work for a landscaping company. How is AI going to help me move piles of dirt, or rake up leaves?
We already tried using it to generate site plans/maps and communicate with clients, and it’s worse than useless for both of those things. What else you got for me?
BTW, I’m not genuinely asking for business advice here, I’m pushing back against your assertion that every industry is using this shit. I’d go as far as to say that AI has no relevance to most workplaces.
“Vibe coded app that lets you create guitar tones by what you tell it” buddy, I’ve played guitar for years, and this sounds silly as hell to me. Describing the tone I want in English words sounds much more difficult than just twisting some knobs. I think the youtuber guy may just be trying to sell a product.
TL:DR. AI summary says he’s saying AI is popular
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.
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
