You must log in or register to comment.
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
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
Prompt laundering, the act of reading a prompt output and retyping an approximation in your own words.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Noted
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 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.
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?
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. 🙂
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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: https://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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.”
This comes obvious to me, but if I wanted to ask an LLM I would’ve done it myself
