• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    28 minutes ago

    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.

    • beneeney@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 minutes ago

      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

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    36 minutes ago

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

    Don’t be that person.

  • Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    34 minutes ago

    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.

  • hcbxzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

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

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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 :(

    • Unleaded8163@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 minutes ago

      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.”

  • Hakuso@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It’s basically the “appeal to authority” fallacy only worse because Claude is neither an authority nor a provider of hard info.

    • pidgey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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?

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • pidgey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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.

          • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            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.

    • architect@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      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.

    • draco_aeneus@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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”.

      • Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        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.

        • Vogi@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          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.

          • Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            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.

        • pidgey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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.

          • chunes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

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

    • Hakuso@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • graynk@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.”

        • kurwa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

  • dandi8@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

          • dandi8@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            8 hours ago

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

            • graynk@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              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.

              • webadict@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                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.

              • Malyca@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 hours ago

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

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • Jaycifer@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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!

          • Jaycifer@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 hours ago

            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.

  • antianarchist@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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

  • floatingpaperweight@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.