4 ms·

I’ve noticed this trend in comments across the internet. Someone will ask or say something, the someone else will reply with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “

I’ve noticed this trend in comments across the internet. Someone will ask or say something, the someone else will reply with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “According to AI…” ChatGPT is free and available to everyone, and so are a dozen other LLMs. If the person making the comment wanted to know what ChatGPT had to say, they could just ask it themselves. I guess people feel like they’re being helpful, but I just don’t get it. Though with that said, I’m happy when they at least say it’s from an LLM. At least then I know I can ignore It. Worse is replying as if it’s their own answer, but really it’s just copy pasted from an LLM. Those are more insidious.

minimaxir 1y ago
The irony is that the disclosure of “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” is done as a courtesy to let the reader be informed. Given the increasing backlash against that disclosure, people will just stop disclosing which is worse for everyone. The only workaround is to just text as-is and call it out when it's wrong/bad, AI-generated or otherwise, as we've done before 2023.
- einsteinx2 1y ago
  That’s true. Unfortunately the ideal takeaway from that sentiment should be “don’t reply with copy pasted LLM answers”, but I know that what you’re saying will happen instead.
- StrandedKitty 1y ago
  I think it's fine to not disclose it. Like, don't you find "Sent from my iPhone" that iPhones automatically add to emails annoying? Technicalities like that don't bring anything to the conversation. I think typically, the reason people are disclosing their usage of LLMs is that they want offload responsibility. To me it's important to see them taking responsibility for their words. You wouldn't blame Google for bad search results, would you? You can only blame the entity that you can actually influence.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Except it isn't. It's a disclosure to say "If I'm wrong, it's not my fault". Because if they'd actually read the output, then cross-checked it and developed some confidence in the opinion, they wouldn't put what they perceive as the most important part up front ("I used ChatGPT") - they'd put the conclusion.
  - D-Machine 1y ago
    It isn't this cut and dry. You can cross-check and verify, but still have blind spots (or know that the tools have biases as well), and so consider it still important to mention the LLM use up front. Or, if you preface a comment with "I am not an expert, but...", it is not often about seeking to avoid all blame, but to simply give the reader reasonable context. Of course, you are right, it is also sometimes just lazy dodging.
- D-Machine 1y ago
  Exactly, it is important and courteous still to cite your resources and tools. I find a good workaround is to just say "some very quick research of my own leads me to ...", and then summarize what ChatGPT said. Especially if you are using e.g. an LLM with search enabled, this is borderline almost literally true, but makes it clear you aren't just stating something completely on your own. Of course, you should still actually verify the outputs. If you do, there is not much wrong with not mentioning using the LLM, since you've don't the most important thing anyway (not be lazy in your response). If you don't verify, you had better say that.
Leherenn 1y ago
Isn't it the modern equivalent of "let me Google that for you"? My experience is that the vast majority of people do 0 research (AI assisted or not) before asking questions online. Questions that could have usually been answered in a few seconds if they had tried. If someone preface a question by saying they've done their research but would like validation, then yes it's in incredibly poor taste.
- einsteinx2 1y ago
  > Isn't it the modern equivalent of "let me Google that for you"? When you put it that way I guess it kind of is. > If someone preface a question by saying they've done their research but would like validation, then yes it's in incredibly poor taste. 100% agree with you there
- nitwit005 1y ago
  There's seemingly a difference in motive. The people sharing AI responses seem to be from people fascinated by AI generally, and want to share the response. The "let me Google that for you" was more trying to get people to look up trivial things on their own, rather than query some forum repeatedly.
  - thousand_nights 1y ago
    exactly, the "i asked chatgpt" people give off 'im helping' vibes but in reality they are just annoying and clogging up the internet with spam that nobody asked for they're more clueless than condescending
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Let me google that for you was when a person e.g. asked "what's a tomato?", and you'd paste in the link http://www.google.com/search?q=what's+a+tomato http://www.google.com/search?q=what's+a+tomato That's not like pasting in a screenshot or a copy/paste of an AI answer, it's being intentionally dismissive. You weren't actually doing the "work" for them, you were calling them lazy. The way I usually see the AI paste being used is from people trying to refute something somebody said, but about a subject that they don't know anything about.
noir_lord 1y ago
To modifying a hitchism. > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Becomes > That which can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought. Since no current AI thinks but humans do I’m just going to dismiss anything an AI says out of hand because you are pushing the cost of parsing what it said onto me and off you and nah, ain’t accepting that.
- greazy 1y ago
  That's wonderfully succinct argument.
  - lostmsu 1y ago
    It hinges assuming that ChatGPT does not thinking, which is clearly false. Hell, Feynman said as much in 1985. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI
    - malfist 1y ago
      I really don't think Feynman said ChatGPT was "thinking" in 1985.
      - lostmsu 1y ago
        He was referring to computers and program execution in general.
        galagawinkle489 1y ago
        He was wrong. He wasn't right about everything just because he's reddit's favourite physicist (after Neil Degrass Tyson).
        lostmsu 1y ago
        Surely he is not wrong just because you say so.
globular-toast 1y ago
It must be the randomness built into LLMs that makes people think it's something worth sharing. I guess it's no different from sharing a cool Minecraft map with your friends or something. The difference is Minecraft is fun, reading LLM content is not.
tonyspiff 1y ago
Indeed. On the other hand, there's a difference between "I one-prompted some mini LLM" and "A deep-thinking LLM aided me through research with fact-checking, agents, tools and lots of input from me." While both can be phrased with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “According to AI…”, the latter would not annoy me.
- malfist 1y ago
  LLMs are incapable of fact checking. They have no concept of facts.
  - D-Machine 1y ago
    I think you are misreading the GP, they said "A deep-thinking LLM aided me through research *with fact-checking, agents, tools and lots of input from me*", which I read as implying they did the fact checking, and not the LLM.
  - notanastronaut 1y ago
    They can cite their sources which can be double checked by the user and verified. I guess at that point the user would just tell you what they found and use the same sources and people would be way less hostile than they currently are. Whether the hatred is justified or not, the openness of said hostility just breeds users who'll hide their usage and deliver the same content, just repackaged enough in attempt to throw off the BS smell. And now you, the user, might be two paragraphs into something that may be truthful enough to fool you unless you're also an expert on the topic. I'd rather know up front what their source was and weigh the data with that in mind. Otherwise we're now all going to have to assume everything we read is AI generated and suspect everyone else is going to look at our own content under such a microscope. Maybe that's a positive though.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> someone else will reply with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “According to AI…” I had a consultant I’m working with have an employee do that to me. I immediately insisted that every hour they’ve billed on that person’s name be refunded.
- wiml 1y ago
  How did that go?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > How did that go? They removed the analyst from our project and credited the hours along with a bonus.
myvoiceismypass 1y ago
I have coworkers who, on a zoom meeting, will respond to questions and discussions by spamming the zoom chat with paste-dumps of ChatGPT, etc. So frustrating and tiresome.
- phatfish 1y ago
  If possible I just go silent when people start copy and pasting ChatGPT at me. Only works in certain cases like Teams/Slack DMs, but it does remove a distraction from my day. I start responding again when they can be bothered to formulate their own thoughts.
baxuz 1y ago
Using ChatGPT can be a good tool to figure out naming and docs. If a stupid LLM doesn't understand what something might be, chances are your user won't either.
mcv 1y ago
Exactly what I came here to say. It's not wrong to ask ChatGPT for advice; it can occasionally be very useful. But if I want chatGPT's opinion, I can ask for it myself. It's pointless to ask ChatGPT to review someone else's code. Use it to review your own before you submit it for review by your coworkers. This is not a problem I've run into fortunately, but I'm appalled that this exists.

minimaxir 1y ago

The irony is that the disclosure of “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” is done as a courtesy to let the reader be informed. Given the increasing backlash against that disclosure, people will just stop disclosing which is worse for everyone. The only workaround is to just text as-is and call it out when it's wrong/bad, AI-generated or otherwise, as we've done before 2023.

einsteinx2 1y ago
That’s true. Unfortunately the ideal takeaway from that sentiment should be “don’t reply with copy pasted LLM answers”, but I know that what you’re saying will happen instead.
StrandedKitty 1y ago
I think it's fine to not disclose it. Like, don't you find "Sent from my iPhone" that iPhones automatically add to emails annoying? Technicalities like that don't bring anything to the conversation. I think typically, the reason people are disclosing their usage of LLMs is that they want offload responsibility. To me it's important to see them taking responsibility for their words. You wouldn't blame Google for bad search results, would you? You can only blame the entity that you can actually influence.
XorNot 1y ago
Except it isn't. It's a disclosure to say "If I'm wrong, it's not my fault". Because if they'd actually read the output, then cross-checked it and developed some confidence in the opinion, they wouldn't put what they perceive as the most important part up front ("I used ChatGPT") - they'd put the conclusion.
- D-Machine 1y ago
  It isn't this cut and dry. You can cross-check and verify, but still have blind spots (or know that the tools have biases as well), and so consider it still important to mention the LLM use up front. Or, if you preface a comment with "I am not an expert, but...", it is not often about seeking to avoid all blame, but to simply give the reader reasonable context. Of course, you are right, it is also sometimes just lazy dodging.
D-Machine 1y ago
Exactly, it is important and courteous still to cite your resources and tools. I find a good workaround is to just say "some very quick research of my own leads me to ...", and then summarize what ChatGPT said. Especially if you are using e.g. an LLM with search enabled, this is borderline almost literally true, but makes it clear you aren't just stating something completely on your own. Of course, you should still actually verify the outputs. If you do, there is not much wrong with not mentioning using the LLM, since you've don't the most important thing anyway (not be lazy in your response). If you don't verify, you had better say that.

Leherenn 1y ago

Isn't it the modern equivalent of "let me Google that for you"? My experience is that the vast majority of people do 0 research (AI assisted or not) before asking questions online. Questions that could have usually been answered in a few seconds if they had tried. If someone preface a question by saying they've done their research but would like validation, then yes it's in incredibly poor taste.

einsteinx2 1y ago
> Isn't it the modern equivalent of "let me Google that for you"? When you put it that way I guess it kind of is. > If someone preface a question by saying they've done their research but would like validation, then yes it's in incredibly poor taste. 100% agree with you there
nitwit005 1y ago
There's seemingly a difference in motive. The people sharing AI responses seem to be from people fascinated by AI generally, and want to share the response. The "let me Google that for you" was more trying to get people to look up trivial things on their own, rather than query some forum repeatedly.
- thousand_nights 1y ago
  exactly, the "i asked chatgpt" people give off 'im helping' vibes but in reality they are just annoying and clogging up the internet with spam that nobody asked for they're more clueless than condescending
pessimizer 1y ago
Let me google that for you was when a person e.g. asked "what's a tomato?", and you'd paste in the link http://www.google.com/search?q=what's+a+tomato http://www.google.com/search?q=what's+a+tomato That's not like pasting in a screenshot or a copy/paste of an AI answer, it's being intentionally dismissive. You weren't actually doing the "work" for them, you were calling them lazy. The way I usually see the AI paste being used is from people trying to refute something somebody said, but about a subject that they don't know anything about.

noir_lord 1y ago

To modifying a hitchism. > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Becomes > That which can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought. Since no current AI thinks but humans do I’m just going to dismiss anything an AI says out of hand because you are pushing the cost of parsing what it said onto me and off you and nah, ain’t accepting that.

greazy 1y ago
That's wonderfully succinct argument.
- lostmsu 1y ago
  It hinges assuming that ChatGPT does not thinking, which is clearly false. Hell, Feynman said as much in 1985. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI
  - malfist 1y ago
    I really don't think Feynman said ChatGPT was "thinking" in 1985.
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      He was referring to computers and program execution in general.
      - galagawinkle489 1y ago
        He was wrong. He wasn't right about everything just because he's reddit's favourite physicist (after Neil Degrass Tyson).
        lostmsu 1y ago
        Surely he is not wrong just because you say so.

globular-toast 1y ago

It must be the randomness built into LLMs that makes people think it's something worth sharing. I guess it's no different from sharing a cool Minecraft map with your friends or something. The difference is Minecraft is fun, reading LLM content is not.

tonyspiff 1y ago

Indeed. On the other hand, there's a difference between "I one-prompted some mini LLM" and "A deep-thinking LLM aided me through research with fact-checking, agents, tools and lots of input from me." While both can be phrased with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “According to AI…”, the latter would not annoy me.

malfist 1y ago
LLMs are incapable of fact checking. They have no concept of facts.
- D-Machine 1y ago
  I think you are misreading the GP, they said "A deep-thinking LLM aided me through research *with fact-checking, agents, tools and lots of input from me*", which I read as implying they did the fact checking, and not the LLM.
- notanastronaut 1y ago
  They can cite their sources which can be double checked by the user and verified. I guess at that point the user would just tell you what they found and use the same sources and people would be way less hostile than they currently are. Whether the hatred is justified or not, the openness of said hostility just breeds users who'll hide their usage and deliver the same content, just repackaged enough in attempt to throw off the BS smell. And now you, the user, might be two paragraphs into something that may be truthful enough to fool you unless you're also an expert on the topic. I'd rather know up front what their source was and weigh the data with that in mind. Otherwise we're now all going to have to assume everything we read is AI generated and suspect everyone else is going to look at our own content under such a microscope. Maybe that's a positive though.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> someone else will reply with “I asked ChatGPT and it says…” or “According to AI…” I had a consultant I’m working with have an employee do that to me. I immediately insisted that every hour they’ve billed on that person’s name be refunded.

wiml 1y ago
How did that go?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > How did that go? They removed the analyst from our project and credited the hours along with a bonus.

myvoiceismypass 1y ago

I have coworkers who, on a zoom meeting, will respond to questions and discussions by spamming the zoom chat with paste-dumps of ChatGPT, etc. So frustrating and tiresome.

phatfish 1y ago
If possible I just go silent when people start copy and pasting ChatGPT at me. Only works in certain cases like Teams/Slack DMs, but it does remove a distraction from my day. I start responding again when they can be bothered to formulate their own thoughts.

baxuz 1y ago

Using ChatGPT can be a good tool to figure out naming and docs. If a stupid LLM doesn't understand what something might be, chances are your user won't either.

mcv 1y ago

Exactly what I came here to say. It's not wrong to ask ChatGPT for advice; it can occasionally be very useful. But if I want chatGPT's opinion, I can ask for it myself. It's pointless to ask ChatGPT to review someone else's code. Use it to review your own before you submit it for review by your coworkers. This is not a problem I've run into fortunately, but I'm appalled that this exists.