4 ms·
My default is that I won't copy and paste anything that's AI generated in communications. I kind of think that's the line. Use whatever you want in the backgrou
by Avicebron 6mo ago
My default is that I won't copy and paste anything that's AI generated in communications. I kind of think that's the line. Use whatever you want in the background, but I want to communicate with the synthesis of your thoughts.
I think this is a reasonable standard to hold, otherwise, like many before have said...send me the prompt. It's actually more interesting/better I know a coworker is struggling to communicate about something.
- threecheese 6mo agoI follow the same strategy, but loosely - I need those emdashes to signal that I’m using the tools.
- rdtsc 6mo agoThat’s my latest joke — that we’ll have to pretend like we used the tools so they can feel validated they’ve spent all this money on hyped up technology. So, yes, it’s em-dashes and “it’s not just this, it’s that …” so they can hopefully leave us alone.
- xp84 6mo agoI remember feeling embarrassed one time that I used a very early GPT thing to help organize perf reviews for employees from the various bullet points I had written for each (I had a lot of direct reports). But in current world, I assume I’d be praised for doing so.
- nytesky 6mo agoI actually regularly used emdashes in my writing —- my kids complain I write like AI in fact — and now I have to consciously remove them. Likewise, I often used literary flourish and pleasantries like that above article about email decompression; I’m from the south so I think structured formality comes with territory. I do think using LLM to turn notes and bullets into narratives should be considered no different than rendering CSV text into an excel format, just making it more digestible by recipient.
- pinkgolem 6mo agoI mean, i struggle with spelling/wording and ask the LLM to proofread a lot. I often send out the LLM version, but still check if it contains the original thoughts correctly. It's not a bad way to extend your vocabulary & catch spelling mistakes
- stingraycharles 6mo ago> I often send out the LLM version, but still check if it contains the original thoughts correctly. Please don’t do this. You probably aren’t aware of how bad this can land. It’s not just about containing your original thoughts, it’s about the verbosity, repetitiveness, and absurdity of it all. Grammarly is a much better tool for these kinds of purposes, and it actually guides and teaches you to improve your writing along the way.
- __mharrison__ 6mo agoThe irony that this response has a very common LLMism...
- adastra22 6mo agoGrammarly the honeypot?
- stingraycharles 6mo agoYou seem to be referring to something specific I’m not aware of, could you elaborate? A Google search didn’t reveal anything specific other than them using famous author names for expert review.
- adastra22 6mo agoIt's the nature of the product itself. It's a key logger software. That's literally what it does -- take every input on your computer and route it to their servers.
- jrumbut 6mo agoMy typical practice is to write a reply using my own brain and whatever practices are called for, then attach any interesting chatbot responses that were generated as documents. So there's a clear separation, a reply from me which I stand by and then some interesting chatbot stuff if you're into that.
- avidiax 6mo agoMy rule is more about expansion ratio and effort. I will generate an LLM output that organizes scattered information and thoughts, resulting in 1.25x the text. I then read and edit it, generate executive summaries, and send it. It saves effort for me in organizing, formatting and summarizing, and the LLM is producing more structure than content.