13 ms·
Don't paste the AI, please
- weakwire 2mo agoMy response when someone is pasting AI is “Thank you for the tokens”.passive aggressive - effective. Feel free to use it
- jobuildsstuff 2mo ago[flagged]
- sarjann 2mo ago[dead]
- blazarquasar 2mo agoIronic for this to be full AI Slop.
- reddalo 2mo agoIt's the modern era lmgtfy
- derrida 2mo agoPeople are doing this? Wow, I'm sorry folks.
- ForHackernews 2mo agohttps://dontpastetheai.com/angry/ https://dontpastetheai.com/angry/ Almost certainly written by AI
- xenocratus 2mo ago... the page never argues that AI is bad or not useful broadly. Not sure if this getting commented again and again is because people are just that bad at understanding that context matters. Not everything has to be evil / slop or pure / virtuous, regardless of context.
- RugnirViking 2mo agono, but it does argue specifically against presenting people with large amounts of ai written text without reading it or checking that it makes sense. It also ends with "written by a human, on purpose"
- mkayokay 2mo agoSame but shorter: https://noslopgrenade.com/ https://noslopgrenade.com/
- arealaccount 2mo agoThis was recently on the front page as well https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/
- su8898 2mo agoIronically, almost all the content on that page sounds AI generated to me!
- suyash 2mo agoYup, that's the biggest joke, the website is not worth the weight.
- tmountain 2mo agoYup, I think the author needs to take their own advice and invest some time into putting it into their own words.
- TonyStr 2mo agoLayout, colors, font and especially language all immediately scream AI. It's fascinating how many of these articles make it to the front page. I would think almost everyone here would be an expert at spotting AI generated slop by now, but people keep up-voting it.
- cynicalsecurity 2mo ago[flagged]
- dude250711 2mo agoThey did not read AI output, they will not read that page either.
- lijok 2mo ago[dead]
- usaphp 2mo agoWhat if English is not your first language and you are afraid of sounding silly when you email or text someone?
- myaccountonhn 2mo agoHow will you learn if you don't practice?
- xenocratus 2mo agoYou write your reply and ask the AI to fix the spelling / grammar for you. It's really not the same thing
- whazor 2mo agoCreate new chat after step 2, then ask AI to fix the spelling / grammar of those three sentences
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- askonomm 2mo agoHow did people do it before AI? Spellchecks have existed forever. Also, people have the ability to improve, so if you offload all your work elsewhere, you will never improve.
- RugnirViking 2mo agodet sker nogle gange! når man er ny til et sprog, det kan være forskrakkelig at skrive i et professionelt område. Men det er bare en del af dine udvikling - du kan sagtens skrive på hvilken sprog når som helst, og de kan bruge deres værktøj til at forstå det, du siger. Der skal kom et tid hvor du skal tale på en sprog på dit kontor. Uden hjælp. Du har bruge for at øve dig, og folk er alligevel pænere end du tror. (this being written in a foreign language I am learning is part of the point)
- walrus01 2mo agoخب، در آن صورت، من وقت می گذاشتم و متنی را با دست می نوشتم و دقیقاً همان چیزی را که نوشته بودم از طریق نرم افزار ترجمه ماشینی اجرا می کردم.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- akie 2mo agoDid they really just say "genuinely useful" in a post decrying the blind copy-pasting of AI text? (it's a strong Claude indicator)
- rho4 2mo agoWas going to say the same but then decided to search first if someone beat me to it. Sigh.
- disillusioned 2mo agoHeh. Just got done writing (by hand!) a Principles of AI Use document for my (ironically) AI enablement firm, the first of which is: Write as yourself. You’re being paid for your expertise and insights. Communicate them directly to us. Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else, and worse, risks skipping that step for yourself. Even if you’re fundamentally using Claude to gather your thoughts or help you prepare a response, you need to be writing it yourself, in your own voice. Not having Claude ape your voice, or “make it sound less like AI”. You, directly. Doing this will further reinforce your own understanding of the state of things, the same way teaching someone is the best way to learn. As a guideline: for Slack and email comms, this should be near-universally written as you. For deliverables that are longer form and follow a template like proposals, roadmap/discovery work, etc., use of agents is expected but, see Principle #2. (Own the Output.)
- mscbuck 2mo agoJust want to say, "Copying and pasting Claude responses into Slack or an email directly shifts the burden of comprehension and understanding to everyone else" is something that I don't think I really internalized until you wrote it in that way. Which I think is evidence of what you are talking about.
- nchmy 2mo ago[flagged]
- jorisboris 2mo agoYou bring up a good point. Maybe it doesn't matter whether an ai or a person wrote it, as long as it is concise. And because most ai's are not concise we blame ai's for faults we don't like in humans either: being longwinding
- nchmy 2mo agoWell, I'd say concision is not the key - sometimes you should be verbose or something else. In fact, my tendency is to be far too long-winded, with lots of perhaps-unnecessary parantheticals etc. Ai is often shockingly useful at reining me in and focusing on the issue at hand, as well as removing my worst tendencies towards meanness etc... Im a good writer, when I want to be. But having Ai review, edit, write drafts etc undoubtedly makes me a better writer/communicator. But only because I'm actively thinking about it all, rather than just saying "respond to this" and then providing copy pasta.
- mopsi 2mo ago[flagged]
- RugnirViking 2mo agoyes, its all ai writing. A bunch of the metaphors here dont make sense. "read it all, yes even the bullets. especially the bullets" if you read one thing from a large wall of text, its gonna be the bullet points, right? thats a big part of what they're for? "It is the conversational equivalent of forwarding the email." this is a terrible metaphor. it seems to rely on the idea you would be mad if you sent an email to someone and they forwarded to someone else? but thats useful, theyre literally sending it to someone who is presumably better placed to help you, or raising it to someone more important because they think what youre saying is important Interesting to note the page also ends with "written by a human, on purpose"
- bjourne 2mo agoI had the same feeling. The terrible metaphors smells like Claude.
- bananzamba 2mo agoThe angry version is even more obviously AI
- Aerolfos 2mo agoDeeply ironic that it sure looks like taking the original post, pasting it to an AI with the message "make this angrier" and then simply copy-pasting the output back to the website. In direct violation of their own (supposed) principles. And the result isn't even very angry at all. It's like mildly peeved internal company communication (also in direct violation of "don't send this to your manager")
- khaosdoctor 2mo agoI actually wrote it all myself... The original version was the angrier one only, but people complained that it was too angry, so I tried to smooth it out with another version people could use.
- 2mo ago
- amaldini 2mo agoGive them a second brain so they don't bother you with silly questions: https://github.com/amaldini/maldalang/blob/main/Examples/Agents/secondbrain_semantic.malda https://github.com/amaldini/maldalang/blob/main/Examples/Age...
- proee 2mo agoPasting a blurb of AI is sometimes a form of "Let Me Google That For You" LMGTFY. If someone asks me a dumb question, I will often resort to giving them an AI answer, that they could have easily looked up themselves.
- rllj 2mo agoIt literally takes you more effort to get an LLM answer, and if it doesn't, it's not really a dumb question, is it?
- asah 2mo ago[dead]
- pammf 2mo agoAgree that it isn’t nice to just copy & paste, but the assumption that your AI generated answers will the same of someone’s else is wrong. Everyone using AI for a while built a different set of preferences, memories and context in general which influence the answers.
- Barbing 2mo agoOr no memories or history. Would be interesting if someone said “I spent $2.50 using llm-council with the three top SOTA models and think this reply makes sense: {paste}” (But better “not sure, though after spending a few bucks on model APIs, perhaps {human-written analysis} is in the right direction”) Also like you, I did think on the angry version “they have the same AI you do” isn’t likely to be right in the consumer space since their AI is ChatGPT (free version?!) and yours is Claude or something.
- pammf 2mo agoEven with the same model results are different. I work in a startup where they went bonks with AI ~1 year ago. Every employee got a Claude account that I don’t even know what tier is (we just have what feels like unlimited tokens), they implemented infamous AI usage leaderboards, people were getting “you’re not using AI enough” feedback and all of that… Over time, it was impressive to see how much the output of the same prompt would differ between us, and it seems to be heavily influenced by the role of the user. I.e. answers coming from the agent of a Data Engineer, a Backend Engineer and a Domain Researcher would not be the same at all. Some of us use harnessing tools, some not, but regardless it we saw differences. So, for example, when a backend engineer would send a question to a data engineer, there was *some* added value even when it was a lazy copy & paste.
- user_7832 2mo agoYou're giving too much credit to people. The folks who run an LLM council aren't the ones blindly copy pasting things. There's responsible AI use (which I think you - and I, and many people here) do, and the "I don't care, I've outsourced my brain to OpenAI" type of people.
- 2mo ago
- ppalata 2mo agoThis does feel like responding to rudeness with more rudeness. My personal guess would be that people who do this (pasting AI responses) know what they are doing, not genuinely trying to help. It's the equivalent of sending LMGTFY.
- wisty 2mo ago[dead]
- avazhi 2mo agoThis site is AI slop.
- seer 2mo agoI’m not convinced tbh, a lot of my colleagues messages are “x broken” or “I do y” … no context whatsoever, and then I have to coax their context for making these decisions. Since people started using Claude now I get full context of everything… might be too much sure, but to be honest over-communicating seems better than under-communicating - sure it’s boring and tedious but that shifts the blockage to me. Otherwise each of these coaxing sessions is something I have to keep in my head until resolved, which is a load in and off itself. And even better - I can point Claude to that message and gives me a summary. You might say this is silly because we are paying the LLM tax, but knowing what to share, and then verifying against my situation are two different things. Sometimes they have checked the wrong thing, sometimes they need guidance, sometimes I need to investigate before I can answer. A full LLM message with context is like “summary of their working context that I can resume on my end” so I don’t waste cycles asking or rechecking etc. And it is still possible to be a learning experience for both of us since the initial message is the start, we can then talk to each other like humans, both much more in sync than before… It is kinda ironic but I think it does push things in a better direction. Would I have loved it if the message was human, direct and to the point - obviously, but we are all busy, we got shit to do, and this is a useful “resume” mechanic
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- dr_dshiv 2mo agoPoints to the future where my bots talk to your bots. I think that’s healthy. Context is everything. Btw, Claude code sent my first accidental AI email yesterday. I guess permissions changed? Before it could only draft. Uhoh, waiting for the onslop.
- seer 2mo agoHah, I guess we are not far away from the “Avogadro Corp” future - and that book was written just _before_ LLM, chatgpt and the attention is all you need paper :) That author had quite the insight
- quectophoton 2mo ago
- Copenjin 2mo agoI don't understand the need of need "Satire, mostly." at the bottom, are opinion on things so dangerous?
- khaosdoctor 2mo agoI added that because people started attacking me since it was a bit angrier at first (the angry version was the only one) and they didn't want to send to colleagues or anyone else, just close friends so they asked me to add a smoother version and to say it's a joke
- skippah 2mo agosame but shorter (already posted on hn): https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ Dont be a meat proxy! simple
- wiseowise 2mo agoBeautiful theme. Author has style.
- tmountain 2mo agoSlop style.
- DenisDolya 2mo agoI think this text also applies well to code written using an LLM.
- jvuygbbkuurx 2mo agoNo. Don't ask a question that AI can answer.
- andrewstuart 2mo agoWeirdly, this post speaks for everyone.
- mickhua 2mo agoDisagree - most people aren't bothered to ask AI and have a conversation with it, they will go to you to get an answer so they have someone to blame when it's wrong.
- totetsu 2mo agoI was recently listening to a podcast about mentalization theory therapy methods for BPD .. for a friend .. Mentalization being the activity of understanding whats going on in other peoples minds, or in ones own. And they idea of pseudomentalizing or "pretend mode" was put forward, where a person looks or sounds like they are .. engaged in mentalizing communication, but are actually checked out. Then I started to think about all the AI slop going around .. and the phenomenon, this meme site is responding to, or AI posting responses.. and I wondered, is this a symptom of.. a global society wide phycological functional deficit, where A) we're none of us communicating as if there is people on the other end.. and B) we're not thinking about our own minds, and taking time to understand things.. [edit] to extend the connections The charm of a messaging board like this is bringing "join attention" to a topic, not just sharing separate monologs. And also, always wondering if something was written by a human or statistically generated could be seen as Epistemic Hypervigilance, leading to stress, and loss of epistemic trust. This could reduces opportunities for taking on new information of feedback, and cause rigidity and isolation.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- nusl 2mo ago"written by a human, on purpose." idk about that
- chrisjj 2mo ago> A short reply from you beats a long one from a model, every time. Disagreed. Bad writing from a chatbot beats worse writing from its user every time - regardless of length. One reason we have so much bot slop is the attractiveness of bad-writing bots to the many people whose writing is even worse.
- hathym 2mo agocoming from a site pasted with ai :)
- evalystai 2mo agomight be the case, but as soon as you have read and agree with it, that doesn't make it any kind of "ai slop" :) Is it relevant or helpful? Can I verify it? Are main questions IMO.
- avazhi 2mo agoWhether you agree with it or not has no effect on whether it's AI slop or not. Outside of math or coding, domains in which there is objective determinism, any AI outputs are slop to the extent they purport to represent the AI's subjective opinion about something. So, an AI proving that 2+2=4 is not AI slop because it's just a formal proof, whereas an AI writing a missive about how 4 is its favourite number would be slop whether you think it has good points/agree/disagree with it or not. The fact that a site purporting to roast AI slop is itself AI slop is surely somebody taking the piss, and the fact that it has 700 upvotes and is the top story here means that people either simply don't read shit they upvote, or the brainrot is already fully established on HN.
- Apocryphon 2mo agoI only read the "Do this instead" section and it sounds eminently reasonable, if not common sense.
- kstenerud 2mo ago[dead]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- winterbourne 2mo agoThis is like an earlier internet era when it was common for people to just copy-paste directly from other websites into a forum response.
- robinei 2mo agoThe article says they could have asked an AI themselves, but that is missing that I may have an agentic context with exactly the right information to answer the question well, which they do not have. For example because I worked on something closely related. Such an agent output is very useful, and taking the time to rewrite that to a short personal answer is not always worth it.
- Hugsbox 2mo agoYour agentic context is still going to shit out 3 pages where a sentence would suffice. Use AI all you want, and then WRITE THE ANSWER IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
- alchemism 2mo agoIf I’m answering your question, and you are not directly paying me for being an information desk, you are definitely getting the AI reply.
- Hugsbox 2mo agoIn that case why not just say you'd prefer not to answer and move on? They're asking for your input, not AI input - if you'd prefer not to contribute literally just say so.
- singularity2001 2mo agoWorst case you just ignore it. Best case there is something useful in it. Shrug.
- isoprophlex 2mo agoDontMakeWebsitesFullOfObviousAISlopThatComplainAboutUsingAITheIronyIsTooThickForMe.com
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- ltononro 2mo agocan I buy the domain?
- Uptrenda 2mo agoI can really only imagine the social context you would want to use this response in would be inappropriate / anti-social. If you had a well-meaning work colleague send you something AI, sending this back is kind of not a good look. If it's meant to be an education piece we got the memo...
- benrutter 2mo agoI don't really seem to be sent very much unfiltered AI output - do other people? I'd love to hear horror stories.
- no-name-here 2mo ago> AI output - do other people? I've seen it on HN, such as comments where someone asked a question about some animal's habitat, and someone else responded back with Claude's answer (labeling it as such). Personally, I thought the AI answer was helpful in the absence of anyone else providing a better source link (which would have been better, sure, but apparently me and everyone else who saw the question couldn't be bothered to go research it/report back). I agree that AI text 1) should always be labeled, 2) can sometimes be bad, and 3) real sources/writing are better. A common retort is "If we wanted an AI answer we could have asked the AI" - maybe, but A) realistically most of us aren't even going to switch contexts in a case like that to go ask an AI about the animal's habitat (even easier than googling), even if we may be interested in the answer, and B) Instead of having every user use a tiny bit of electricity, etc. to generate duplicate AI answers, we can do it once.
- getfacl 2mo agoUnless I'm your research assistant, why would I be asking AI questions for you when you could do it yourself? If you need an answer I already have I will gladly share it with you. If you need my help to find an answer, then tell me that and I gladly will help.
- erelong 2mo agoActually tbh AI outputs can be pretty good and I have been surprised to see a lack of copy / pastes of them in the format of: Unique human prompt + AI output which is useful and does a good job expanding on the prompt topic and which when pasted saves people the time of having to go prompt AI on the same topic (fully reviewed by a person before sharing it, to ensure the content has relevance)
- grzracz 2mo agoVery ironic this page is full of AI text
- coldtea 2mo ago>Someone asked you a real question. You popped it into a chatbot, copied the answer, and sent it back. It felt fast. It felt helpful. And it usually isn't. OMFG! Even the "don't send AI answers" page text is fucking AI slop. Can't they be bothered to write 200 words of their own?
- ankushdograuk 2mo agolmao love it. Although I'm guilty too though
- block_dagger 2mo agoThe premise of the article is that everyone has access to the “same tools” but that’s glossing over the specialization inherent in a specific expert’s harness config (memories, skills, rules, repos, etc) that produce actually helpful responses (eg engineer’s view vs product manager’s view).
- gexla 2mo agoI remember back in the day when you could apply this to Google search results. When I was freelancing, I had a number of people I worked with who would fire off fast questions, but they would still pay me for my time. Then I would return what was essentially a Google search result shortly after. Yes, I would send my own answer, not some paste from Google. But the point is. They had search, so why didn't they think to do the search? They had the same tools as I did. And yet regularly they couldn't think of the answer. I still deal with this with AI today. When you ask a question, maybe you're asking for the interpretation of the question by the person on the other side. And it's that interpretation that goes to the LLM. Or otherwise some filter of how that person thinks about the question differently than you do.
- bkaae 2mo agoTranslating a client question to an actual technical question is the hard part I guess. Google-fu is still a thing, and absolutely a thing you were/are getting paid for it seems.
- andai 2mo agoThere's a couple pieces to this I've noticed. First of all there's a skill to it. You learn how to phrase things, based on how other people probably phrased it. You learn how google modifies or ignores your queries... (or stops respecting modifiers...) That comes with practice, and lots of it! I google so much that google regularly throws up the captchas (even when I'm logged in). I remember when Kagi first started, my friend sent me a link to their subscription, and it was like an order of magnitude less search than I did. (They increased it a lot since then.) So it's skill issue, and skill is a function of volume. Most people barely ever google things. Which is the second thing I've noticed. I'll often be with people, and they'll be like, "huh I wonder XYZ", and then just trail off, as if there was an implied "I guess we'll never know!" at which point I pull out my phone, bewildered, and simply look it up, and everyone looks at me like I'm an alien. (I do not understand socializing apparently.)
- jiaosdjf 2mo agoSorry this website is too polite. DO NOT FUCKING PASTE AI RESPONSES TO ME, EVER, PERIOD. When someone tells me they "talked to Claude" they sound retarded. Just tell me you looked into it, and I fucking swear to god if you just took what Claude said verbatim and do not understand the problem then you are a cunt and I will stop working with you. When someone pastes LLM output in chat I completely ignore it. I will just continue the conversation as if they said nothing and silently mark them as cretinous in my mind. This is not up for debate, you will talk to me in short well formed sentences and get to the fucking point or you will fuck off
- tontonius 2mo agojust me or does this entire site/text read as 100% LLM generated? extremely ironic if so, they just pasted the AI.
- Hugsbox 2mo agoI got that impression too. Absolutely reeks of LLM. Really irritating.
- pelagicAustral 2mo agoLuckily I don't have this problem since I am so full of shit that one of the things I still enjoy the most is answering people with my own crap.
- pranshuchittora 2mo agoDon't be a MEAT PROXY
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- thih9 2mo ago[dead]
- wseqyrku 2mo ago> Don't Paste the AI, please You're gonna need a stronger language. Why do you think people love AI? If I have to think and god forbid read the response I might as well live in the woods or something
- philipportner 2mo agoLinked a the bottom of the post is the angry version https://dontpastetheai.com/angry/ https://dontpastetheai.com/angry/
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- HSO 2mo agopersonally i like editing much more than writing (the scare of the white page or how it was called…) and i detest ai slop so my solution is to speak combined with an ai cleanup like macwhisper or wispr flow of all the uhs and ahs and repetitions or rephrasings etc you can even use ai to pretend a conversation or interview style then i have stuff to edit boom
- mgsgde 2mo agoThat's pretty much why I built WhisperShortcut: ⌘1 dictates to the clipboard, and a second shortcut handles AI cleanup. That keeps raw transcripts and edits as two separate steps instead of a black box. https://github.com/mgsgde/whisper-shortcut https://github.com/mgsgde/whisper-shortcut
- straw_hat_build 2mo ago[dead]
- aneryu 2mo agoI don’t think it’s that Sol loves to cheat; rather, every GPT model since 5.4 seems to have had that tendency.
- netsec_burn 2mo agoPerhaps you meant to reply to a different post?
- Marciplan 2mo agoThis resonates. Had this in the start of the year with clients sending me their “research”, which, of course, was just a Deep Research result. Lead me to send this article when I work with folks: https://www.marcia.no/words/etiquette https://www.marcia.no/words/etiquette I like to think it helped, but likely what helped was that nobody seems to use Deep Research anymore, haha.
- globular-toast 2mo ago> If you don't have anything to add, it's okay to say so. "No strong opinion here" is a real, helpful reply. This is really useful, I wish more people would understand this: you don't have to have an opinion on everything. In fact, you probably shouldn't have an opinion on most things. My own take on the AI issue: https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/ https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/
- depressedlesor 2mo agoWhat if i have used the AI, it answered, but I don't understand the answer?
- Hugsbox 2mo agoIf you don't understand the answer, don't answer somebody else with it. You're attaching your name to whatever you copy-paste to people, and if you don't understand it there's a chance it's complete nonsense. Save yourself the embarrassment. If you don't know how to answer somebody's question, just say "I don't know".
- khaosdoctor 2mo agoThanks for sharing my little rant again <3 we are looking for translations too!
- mschuster91 2mo agoSimilar in spirit: https://stopsloppypasta.ai/en/ https://stopsloppypasta.ai/en/, discussed a few months ago [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389570
- romanovcode 2mo agoA much better and straight to the point example is https://noslopgrenade.com https://noslopgrenade.com
- hanselot 2mo agoThe inverse of this is. Don't ask me a question a 9b llm could have answered. If you are getting blocks of llm text perhaps it's because you don't deserve their input and could have satisfied your query by not making it someone else's problem.
- crossroadsguy 2mo ago> It's a great drafting partner This I have been doing a bit. I strictly asks it to never give me suggestions but raise questions, concerns, tell me if it feels if something can be better, style-wise or otherwise without giving me those options. And a bit of other overall feedback requests. And if the model adheres to this and doesn't jump the gun, it indeed works quite nice. But it often jumps the gun, forgets, doesn't give a f- about my instructions, or whatever. Maybe more robust local models will better.
- imperio59 2mo agoDon't be a meat proxy.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Grombobulous 2mo agoI agree with the general sentiment. However, there are a lot of people asking obvious questions where they are just abusing your time and offloading work onto you. Pasting AI output verbatim is the modern day equivalent of “let me google that for you.”
- x3n0ph3n3 2mo ago[dead]
- Melatonic 2mo agoI used to feel that way until I realised some people I worked with were just actually quite terrible at Googling things. After that I realised that using a search engine is actually a skill I was taking for granted and one I was quite good at. I did actually spend a few minutes searching for them and found multiple documents and forum posts - sent those over and they were super happy. A project that had been stalled for seemingly forever suddenly was done quickly. Now that I pay for Kagi search I find myself doing this even more (especially since Google itself often doesn't return great results anymore) and I can quickly find good info way faster than most
- gabosarmiento 2mo agoAI;DR This is the broader symptom of a global toxic corporate culture. We are afraid that one badly phrased message can hurt our reputation or even our jobs, so optimizing every message with softer wording, more political correctness, less directness is safer. But the real problem is the culture underneath it. If people are constantly worried about how every sentence will be interpreted, eventually they stop speaking plainly, stop challenging decisions, and sometimes stop speaking up at all. So this is like attacking the consequences not the root causes. There should be some sort of measurement of how broken is a community or a company by letting a bot scan Slack/Teams and let the bot remind everyone the importance of lowering the fake index.
- stratospheric72 2mo agoCompletely agree. I wonder how much this varies across cultures on the country level (like how people say the Dutch are blunt). I think that indirectness emerges when a critical mass of people decide that they're better off in an indirect culture. i.e., thinking "nobody is straightforward with me, but that's worth it because it means I don't have to be straightforward with anyone else". And of course that's infuriating for anyone who would rather take the opposite deal!
- gcr 2mo agoPeople don’t rely on AI because they’re worried about political correctness. That’s a pretty weak assumption.
- andai 2mo agoOnce per decade or so, a man decides to tell the truth, and gets his life destroyed.
- rglover 2mo agoPeople need to internalize what Bernie Mac says here [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t35rEpCur2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t35rEpCur2E
- Cameri 2mo agoI think you are assuming that people use AI to communicate with others because they don’t want to hurt their feelings: it’s likely hardly the case. The article here is just virtue signalling corporate version. Just tell the person doing it not to send you messages produced by AI directly and candidly. It’s clear you are not afraid of “hurting their feelings”. It’s rather weak to need a website to speak for you but maybe I’m wrong.
- qarl2 2mo agoMeh. Ask the agent to be succinct. Make it a standing rule.
- llm_nerd 2mo ago"Someone asked you a real question. You popped it into a chatbot, copied the answer, and sent it back. It felt fast. It felt helpful. And it usually isn't." Excellent advice, with one very large exception based upon human foibles. Occasionally there are people who do not ask things in good faith. They ask you a question not because "they wanted your take on it... Your context, your taste, your judgement". Instead they ask the question because they're then going to go to extensive lengths to find every possible counterpoint or opposition to whatever answer you give. In 2026 those sorts of people who will ask and then revert 30 minutes later, after you've carefully detailed a well thought out answer, that "ChatGPT says..." Add that for time eternal they will hold the fact that you answered something for them as a liability that you must atone for, and for which you are responsible for every ramification of their interpretation of your answer[1]. If you ask someone something and they just copy an AI answer, it's such a cop out that I imagine there are many cases where the person knows they're dealing with someone who "asks questions" like this. I have people who I give thoughtful, considered answers to, but then I also have people that I basically say "I don't know...Google it", because giving an iota of an answer always turns out to become something I regret. [1] - This is not unlike helping someone with their computer. There are people who we love to help, but then there are people that will then ascribe everything that ever goes wrong with their computer for time eternal to that time you showed them a shortcut in Excel. CPU died six years later? Probably because of that shortcut.
- sceptic123 2mo agoDon't make the "Don't paste the AI website, please" site. You can rather use some kind of search tool to find one of the many that already exist. If it's not quite saying what you want, maybe just reach out to the author with an ask for them to update it. Then we get one place everybody knows about, rather than the many many sites (likely all AI generated anyway) that dilute the message.
- ryanschaefer 2mo agoWow it’s actually that bad… I was looking for https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ but it appears people have co-opted the original phrase and out SEOed the original article… only to make a less concise, AI generated copy of it mimicking nohello…. https://dontbeameatproxy.com https://dontbeameatproxy.com
- dinga 2mo agouff.. HN is degrading rapidly. (Yes, also all your comments about "AI SLOP SPOTTED, AI;DR". Regurgitating the same crap over and over again.... pff...)
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- bguiop 2mo agoAwww... Soz. Is that not so good for your model training!
- znort_ 2mo ago> (1) Just read what it gave you, (2) then write your own take on it completely agree except a crucial step is missing here: (1.5) validate the accuracy/truth/relevance of it your own sincere and human take on rubbish will still be rubbish. validating is indeed the more uncomfortable/demanding task here but if you omit it you become just a "human ai beautifier", and this will actually undermine the trust in you as a human. if you are going to omit validation just paste away, be honest and let it be obvious, you can then blame the ai.
- perching_aix 2mo agoThe site owner me doesn't work with incessantly helpless people. Good for them. I do. "They all have the same tools as I do" is exactly what's infuriating. They either blatantly don't use them, or are too incompetent to do so effectively, which would track. I have been making an effort to provide an "AI;DR" section as well, even before the term existed, because of brevity. But sending along the full(er) text as reference I think is perfectly fine in such cases.
- conartist6 2mo agoAnd in general do not use its words as your own. Its words are its, not yours.
- arkensaw 2mo agoWhile I agree with the sentiment it seems unnecessary for things like this to have their own domain name. Surely a blog post would cover this?
- andai 2mo ago[dead]
- luciana1u 2mo ago[flagged]
- jneal 2mo agowhat a complete waste of time
- hermannj314 2mo agoI want to mindlessly copy-paste this link to so many people rather than think for myself on how to respond to them. We need a dontpastethedontpastetheai.com to get ahead of this.
- throwatdem12311 2mo agoHad an offshore dev respond to me with copy pasted Claude response for the first time the other day. My reaction was of immediate visceral disgust. I can say in no uncertain terms that I do not care if your English is completely broken. I prefer that over AI slop. You will not improve your writing and language proficiency if you do not practice them! If you do not care about your language proficiency then you have zero business doing offshored work. The answer was also wrong. I pointed Claude to the micro service repo in question and asked it myself. Got a different but correct answer, after verifying it myself. Their code is so trash I wonder if we’re even using the same models. Every PR I need to go over it myself and have Claude refactor and restructure everything. Claude generates decent code that can be made great with just a few iterations. I don’t even think these guys are running the code to test it, let alone read it. Just slop and ship. Can’t rely on them to understand the code or even answer simple questions about it. What is even the point of all this?! AI has made me personally more productive but overall it’s still a net negative because when you’re a “-x dev” the force multiplier from AI is overwhelming and soul crushing to everyone around you.
- ltbarcly3 2mo agoThe "good" news is you won't have to deal with this much longer. Claude, which this person basically admitted through their behavior, will replace 99% of the offshore devs in the next couple years. Then you won't have to get the ick from talking to them and they can go back to having no real economic prospects in a 3rd world country, and most likely lose the social and economic standing they had from having a good job.
- throwatdem12311 2mo agoI know what people from their country think of the people from mine so I won’t be losing sleep over it.
- tzs 2mo agoOr you’ve got it backwards. Claude et al. with offshore developers to fix hallucinations and verify answers will replace onshore developers.
- rrr_oh_man 2mo agoDon’t link the AI slop, please
- ltbarcly3 2mo ago> Someone asked you a real question. You popped it into a chatbot, copied the answer, and sent it back. It felt fast. It felt helpful. And it usually isn't. This is just demonstrably false. It often IS very helpful. It's annoying that people continue to ask basic factual questions without taking easy steps to solve the problem themselves. I can't remember the last time I "asked someone a question" that it was possible to figure out for myself. It's the people who keep asking basic, easily researched questions and then wait for you to explain it to them, without first trying to resolve it on their own, that are being anti social, not the people trying to help them. This is much the same as when Google was relatively new, and people hadn't adapted to it yet. I would get asked questions constantly like "what is the name of the class that does X" and since I usually try not to be too much of a jerk, I would often stop and go open a source file or look in the docs for the person. I know there is a class, and I think I remember what it's called, but I need to go double check it. That usually meant googling for the docs, clicking the first result, and sending them that link along with the specific answer. Sometimes when they asked me I was frustrated about something else or just in a bad mood, and I would tell them to f**g google it, I am not their research assistant. Ignoring AI is the same scenario as ignoring Google but worse. I am not your research assistant, and worse, there is an artificial research assistant standing by 24/7. If I have to paste something in AI and paste the result back to you I am not the asshole in this situation. If you go do the work to check yourself and it's not something you can just verify conclusively and you need to be sure it's not the AI fooling you, then I am more than happy to look at what you have and lend any expertise I can add to the situation.
- sebastianconcpt 2mo agoTo "They asked you because they wanted your take on it... Your context, your taste, your judgement." actually I'd ask even for more than that: For any given <subject> I'd want: - Your context - your taste - your judgement - clarify what bet <subject> encourages to support - be ready to elaborate your thesis of that bet With that we have the basic complete building block that used one after another can model a basic lifecycle of a dialogue that can make progress towards something (a goal, a mission, something useful)
- RIMR 2mo agoIt sounds like you're approaching this narrowly for how you specifically communicate in your line of work, and not really thinking of the broader spectrum of how people communicate professionally. If people provided me the information you just listed, it wouldn't help me at all in what I do. Sometimes a customer emails asking a question answered by the documentation. I am not paid to paraphrase the documentation, I am paid to get customer requests out of the door quickly, so I'll be sending links to the documentation. If AI gets that request out of the way faster, good.
- sebastianconcpt 2mo agoI see you point. You are helping them to connect dots and get unstuck. The case I've raised is actually generic and not specific to one domain. But you can say is scoped on how expert-to-expert can make progress. Or how "precision people" communicate because both agree they are putting hypothesis to the test and there will be one that is a winner (hence "the bet").
- michaeltenpow 2mo agoYes - lazy AI answers from generic AI are lazy. Don’t do that please. But this leading statement is not necessarily true: “The person on the other side has the same tools you do” Aren’t we all imbuing our AI with our own thought patterns? Folks I speak to spent a tremendous amount of time building tooling and (hierarchical) context around LLMs such that the output it produces is definitely not the same as what the stock model produces.
- MetaMalone 2mo agoDoes anyone else think the angry version reads like AI? “Here’s what you just did”
- andai 2mo agoI wanted to suggest just not talking to people who do this, but apparently you get paid to talk to them.
- spider-mario 2mo ago> The person on the other side has the same tools you do. Strictly speaking, not true. I have Gemini Pro; my friend doesn’t.
- keithnz 2mo agoI disagree strongly. Nearly every time this comes up it seems people are not doing a good job giving their AI context. My AI environment is REALLY context aware based on a whole bunch of things I have access to that others don't. When my AI respond to a question it is full of information the person asking the question just didn't have access to. You can also train your AI not to give a wall of text but to give very concise answers. This whole web page stinks of being a total skill issue with using AI. I much prefer AI answers to my questions ( most of the time the answer is going straight into my AI, so I don't really care if an AI generated the response, I'd probably trust it more.). This is all about you build your projects, the documentation you build, how that is shared, it means many questions don't need to be asked because everyone has access to good context whether its built things, things coming up, ideation, market research, product research, or whatever stage you are at. Build pathways for context to move around and go through stages. Not only that, my guess is everyone is mostly reading AI responses to things ALL the time anyways, what difference does it make if you get to ask a question and get a response from another AI with a different context? None. Avoid these kinds of sites as they lead people astray. Much like the advice "Share the prompt, not the response" ... absolutely ridiculous, different context means you get different responses with the same prompt. If you want to pursue something that's actually useful, think about context engineering such that questions largely don't need to be asked.
- keithnz 2mo agodown voting this is silly, just shows how badly people are buying into this. It is misguided. On the other side of things I guess it's good not everyone is working out how to be super productive with AI.
- frankbyte 2mo agothe angry version is... not very angry.
- testycool 2mo agoAnd doesn't seem very constructive either.
- martinkallstrom 2mo agoHere's what Claude said: There's a delicious irony in pasting dontpastetheai.com into an AI chat, and I choose to believe that's deliberate. It's well written though. The parody answer in the middle is the sharpest part — "this mild Google search you could've done in 3 seconds" — because it nails the exact texture of unedited model output: the fake enthusiasm, the numbered scaffolding, the conclusion that concludes nothing. The tell isn't that AI was involved, it's that no human judgment was applied afterward. You can't fake the presence of taste. The "guess who the AI will replace first" line is the real argument underneath the humor. If your contribution is indistinguishable from a prompt box, you've made the case for your own redundancy better than any automation study could. What survives is the part the page calls "the thing the model doesn't have" — your opinion, your context, your willingness to say "actually I disagree." It's also a close cousin of something you've presumably thought about with Kindship: when agents message each other or humans, the same failure mode applies. An agent that just relays raw completions is exactly as useless as the coworker this page is roasting. The value is in the editorial layer — deciding what's true, what's relevant, what you're willing to stand behind. That's arguably what SOUL.md-style identity is for: giving an agent something to have an opinion from. Were you filing this as cultural artifact, or is it aimed at someone specific in your orbit?
- Therenas 2mo agoJesus that feels like it has even more claude-isms than usual.
- xgulfie 2mo agoSure, here's a reply you can use. Nobody is reading that Is there anything you would like me to add?
- no_multitudes 2mo agoWhat is the value of posting this? If I wanted to know what Claude thought about the article, that option is at my fingertips at all times. You are wasting time and space.
- klm127 2mo agoI recently wrote an analysis for a proposal my company was working on. I did not use any AI. I had a couple conversations with agents while mulling some approaches, but they never edited my work nor did I have any chat open while I wrote. Every word was my own. I notified my other stakeholders - "here's my analysis, none of it was written with ai". It sounds silly to say, and I worried others could take it as an attack. But I needed to communicate "This is a long document but its actually worth reading". I liked what I wrote. The final author of the proposal liked what I wrote. All of my ideas made it in to the proposal. We landed the contract. Its a nice chunk of $ for us. Its still worth putting the hours in.
- slinkydeveloper 2mo agoWish there was another version more "angry" than the angry version
- jbs789 2mo agoI find it shocking this needs to be said. Of all you’re doing is copying and pasting anyone else’s stuff, then you’re adding little/no value. You should be paid nothing.
- ronbenton 2mo agoVerbatim AI responses to my PR review comments drive me up a wall
- norenX 2mo ago[dead]
- matherial 2mo agoI wish the author lived by the same principle, seeing how the text on the webpage is pretty evidently AI-generated.
- mvanbaak 2mo agoas far as I can see, the author is not copy/pasting the AI output as answer to a question.
- vulture916 2mo agoJust sent this to my CEO - thanks!
- jillesvangurp 2mo agoThe complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. The underlying problem here is that communication is hard; especially if it's not face to face. People can't read your mind or might not get the full context of your question. Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way. And that was when there was a lot of email to deal with. Lots of people demanding all sorts of things via email and creating more work for each other by sending more email. I learned to 1) never reply instantly to low priority requests, 2) be very brief and clear, 3) that talking to people is almost always the better choice when you get tempted to write a long reply. If you don't like the answers you are getting, maybe reflect on what you are asking, how reasonable that request really was, and how you communicated it. Maybe your question was entirely reasonable and the answer really inappropriately bad. If so, give feedback or talk to the person. But maybe the other side didn't get you. Or maybe they were busy and you are interrupting them. There can be all sorts of reasons why you aren't getting what you expected. It all depends on the context of course. If you are delegating something to somebody that reports to you, you can just tell them off. But if the other side is a colleague, your boss, or a friend you have to be a bit more considerate.
- britches11 2mo agoThe bad PM on the other side does not have the same tools I do because they refuse to use the agents I've set up for them to ask questions about the codebase.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago> what’s the equivalent of “google it yourself” these days? Do you actually say that to people? Edit: i’ve hit the comment limit per given time, but all I have to say is “what have you found so far?” And “Google it yourself” are radically different responses man. The former is far more reasonable, it shows you are willing to be helpful and is a productive question. The other is just rude and implies your time is too valuable as well as assumes they’ve done nothing to tackle the problem. If you actually say “Google it yourself” when people ask you a question that would be absolutely bizarre behavior.
- hnc99rxjlw 2mo ago[dead]
- ltononro 2mo agoWell not sure if I agree fully. On one hand it does make a lot of sense to process and answer w/ your own words. But, sometimes if what the agent says make sense and you just want to handoff findings that is also fine - I legit don't feel the need to be super strict. In startup environment where people are more chill about this, this seems totally fine. It would be more frustrating in a corp/executive environment where thing have to get more structure before being communicated and passed around. Someone would probably be justifiably tagged as lazy. But I think ideally agents should speak to agents when this kind of comm goes through. What a nice opportunity here ;)
- maxverse 2mo agoI think a lot about a mismatch of effort these days. Here's an extreme example: I spend an hour drafting a doc outlining our engineering strategy for the next few quarters (or if we're in a startup, maybe writing up my product vision.) I share it with you to get feedback and comments. If you plug it into Claude and send me back an AI-formatted list, with sections like "the real insight (read this first)", we have very different ideas about where our value comes from and what deserves our effort, even though on paper I drafted a doc and you reviewed/expanded it. I think it's fine to provide AI input if you disclose it, in which case you could encourage me to just plug it into Claude myself next time. And I agree there's gray area: the AI output might be the result of a long conversation, shaped by careful prompting and context and guidance. The writing is AI generated, but the thinking is human.
- ltononro 2mo agoNice pov. I spoke mostly from an engineering perspective. When revisiting my corp career in executive position I agree! However when writing strategy documents and stuff like that I think that the AI is mostly corrupting the idea and making it extremely verbose. If someone manages to make the AI speak straight to the point with the vision based on what they want to communicate, that, to me is completely fine too. What is kind of sad is that in the old times we would value a lot the folk that went and wrote a memo, put a lot of thought to it and so on.. Now literally you just plug claude in your notion and you have the document. To me, this kind of speaks about "the value was never really in the document itself"and more in the understanding of the doc. You can delegate a lot of stuff to the AI but you can't delegate understanding. So when you're presenting it to the exec committee, or circulating it, does not matter what claude/gemini/gpt wrote down, it matters if you understood it, agrees with it and understand that this represents your positioning. What I see w a lot of juniors, on the other hand, is that people really just copy and paste or shallow understand what was wrote. Delegating too much like that removes the human-seed and makes it kind of worthless
- mrmarket 2mo ago@dang this is both an obviously AI-generated post and also versions of it have been posted ad nauseam over the past few weeks/months. why no flag?
- CuriouslyC 2mo ago[flagged]
- dang 2mo agoPlease don't do this here.
- CuriouslyC 2mo agoSure. While we're tone policing can we put an end to the ad nauseam (unintentionally ironic) regurgitation of "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, why should I be bothered to read it" please?
- dang 2mo agoI agree that such repetition can be annoying, like anything that's repeated too often. But your GP comment crossed further into guidelines breakage than most of those do.
- joeguilmette 2mo agoThis site feels like AI slop, and it’s also not something I’d be able to send without feeling like asshole. I found this blog post to be much better at getting the point across: https://tombedor.dev/human-attention-and-human-effort/ https://tombedor.dev/human-attention-and-human-effort/
- spread2009 2mo ago[flagged]
- agnishom 2mo agoRelated: Don't Be a Meat Proxy: https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ No Meat Proxy: https://nomeatproxy.com/ https://nomeatproxy.com/ How to Passive-Aggressively Shame People Who Use LLMs Selfishly: https://joshmoody.org/blog/selfish-ai/ https://joshmoody.org/blog/selfish-ai/ AI;DR: https://www.rickmanelius.com/p/aidr-ai-didnt-read https://www.rickmanelius.com/p/aidr-ai-didnt-read
- kmoser 2mo agoAI;DR https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49336573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49336573
- dec0dedab0de 2mo agoIf I spent an hour or two going back and forth with an LLM, I will write my understanding of the issue, and what I think it means for us. Then at the end I'll put "This is what [llm name] said:" and paste in the detailed ai summary at the end. I think that is the most honest, and effective way to do it. Before an LLM, I would have worked for much longer, then written the same short description, but without the detailed summary at the end. The llm output is really just extra clarifying info I never would have bothered to do on my own. By clearly marking it, I give people the option to skip it and just trust me.
- logicallee 2mo ago"written by a human, on purpose."
- cekanoni 2mo agothis is equivalent to nohello.net/en/ club, deserves to be in pinned in every messaging app
- plumbees 2mo agoEver since my boss has transitioned to doing code reviews by AI and off loading his brain fully to AI, I could just use my AI to do the same to fix the things and I no longer have to deal with petty design arguments. I no longer have to deal with stylistic problems and that's great. When somebody offloads their communication to AI, it's easy to deal with. Meet with the same energy. Let the AI waste their time in the communication because the lack of effort on one side deserves the same type of communication-style. As I wrote this i switch to the phrase communication-style because I realize that when he does his code review it's literally just a quick pass and a paste, but unfortunately when I do AI code reviews I review every single review item and push back individually on each item, research the items, write tests against what the review says and basically curate the code review I give out, which takes me 3 hours and then I have a boss angrily messaging me asking why the code review isn't done. So on the one end I've managed to reduce toxicity in the reviews, but the tradeoff is toxicity in the expectation of a rubber stamp.
- ActionHank 2mo agoYou should mention that if the personal input isn't required your boss should prioritize the work to add purely AI driven reviews and not waste valuable human time. This either calls their bluff, or more likely, leads the system to break over time, so that your boss comes to understand that an LLM is not a human developer.
- JSR_FDED 2mo agoHere for once is something HR can actually do to be useful, make an internal campaign around do’s and don’ts of AI in the workplace. They can add how clients don’t pay us to type things in a box for them either.
- RIMR 2mo ago>The person on the other side has the same tools you do. No, they don't. I have access to heaps of raw information about customers and their systems that I can easily provide to my AI. That AI can also dig through all the communications we've had with other customers who have asked us similar questions, and draft a coherent on-brand response. I often paste AI-generated responses with significant success, and all I have to do is make sure the answer isn't wrong and doesn't include sensitive info, and to remove a few extra adjectives and em-dashes that I don't want. If the customer has access to my tools, that's a critical security incident. They contact me because I have access to info they don't, and unlike and AI, I can guarantee my response is valid. As for people who copy/paste AI generated text blindly: That's firable in my books.
- telesilla 2mo agoI read this somewhere: "send me instead the prompt you used to ask the AI to tell me something, so I know what it was that you wanted to say"
- CuriouslyC 2mo agoIronic comment of the post.
- jamisonbryant 2mo agoI have been using the term "meat proxy" from Gruhn's blog [1] but was worried about sounding uncouth in an office setting. The "polite" version of this page solves that problem nicely. The "angry" version is funny, too. [1]: https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/ https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/
- sylware 2mo agoNah.. people will start to check for 'watermarks' first...
- snmx999 2mo agoI don't see why I should have to "uglify" or compress needlessly the perfectly distilled analysis, just because people associate perfect formatting and details with AI slop.
- perrygeo 2mo agoPasting AI slop is a strong signal. It tells the world "I add no value. I am a proxy for ideas generated by others". It's sad to see people I otherwise respected debase themselves. I'll say this clearly. Using AI for writing is bad. Don't do it. Ever. If you can't formulate a coherent thought yourself, just don't. I don't want to hear what the LLM said. I want to hear what you said. Loudly proclaiming you have nothing to add is a strange flex. Just stay quiet.
- mromanuk 2mo ago> The person on the other side has the same tools you do. If they wanted the generic answer, they would have gotten it in four seconds. They asked you because they wanted your take on it... Your context, your taste, your judgement. I beg to differ. Most of my life, as “the computer guy” — basically since I was a kid — I’ve always been surprised by how lazy people can be, and how they often prefer to ask “the computer guy” or some other human trusted source rather than work out the answer themselves. There was even a website called “Let Me Google That for You” back when Google was a trustworthy source of answers, precisely to point out how easy it was to find the answer yourself. Obviously, that didn’t stop people from asking, and I don’t think LLMs will either. People will continue to turn to “the computer guy” — aka you. And if your judgement is that copying an LLM response verbatim is the best answer, then yes, you’re fulfilling your role perfectly well.
- niko323 2mo agoThe point is valid but I'm 90% sure the delivery was ironically AI generated.
- hugodan 2mo agopencil pushers gonna pencil push
- NateEag 2mo agoThere's a very deep irony in this page being a bunch of pasted LLM output.
- aftbit 2mo agohttps://noaislop.net/ https://noaislop.net/
- m3kw9 2mo agoYou see a lot of his on reddit and i resort to just scan it like a trash
- bluecheese452 2mo agoFeels like a lost cause. You can’t just push a highly addictive slop machine in front of users and then blame them for using it.
- AndrewKemendo 2mo ago> The world is filled with people that don't want to read or think about things Ignore them and move on with your life.
- paxys 2mo ago“Paste this AI generated text to your coworkers telling them not to paste AI generated text to you.”
- RichardChu 2mo agoThe funny thing is: this website reads like AI.
- nader 2mo agoFits the topic :) https://nader.io/posts/ai-dr/ https://nader.io/posts/ai-dr/
- buzz27 2mo agoi recently created https://needsmoresalt.org/ https://needsmoresalt.org/ with a similar intent figuring out the most useful epistemic and conversational norms around AI in work communication is still a work-in-progress. there's times when "go talk to claude a bit and then get back to me with a more precise question" is reasonable, and other times where it inhibits learning and culture. similarly, there are many occasions where i don't mind quoted AI with a human precis. the most objectionable behaviours are not that different from pre-ai ones. don't copypasta stackoverflow code without understanding it. don't submit PRs you can't explain to a colleague. don't waste time asking people things you can easily figure out. don't send unreviewed work to people expecting them to figure it out. don't quote authorities you don't understand. all the same stuff applies to AI, but AI seems to have expanded the scope and scale of the bad behaviours, making the need for better defences more pressing.
- TheScienceMan 2mo ago[dead]
- xd1936 2mo agoSimilar in spirit to my site, https://stopcitingai.com https://stopcitingai.com
- tccole 2mo agoThis is a sidenote, but I really like the design of the website. It’s very tasteful.
- cesnja 2mo agoI beg to differ. I'll often do a short LLM session to figure out an issue and will use my existing knowledge and experience to drive the LLM towards some solution. When the answer seems legit enough, I'll copy it back to the one asking. It's not that different to what we were doing back in the day when search engines were still useful. I often wound up replying with a link either to a stackoverflow question or a blog post. There was still a knowledge/experience component involved in evaluating if the proposed solution fits the original question.
- goshx 2mo agoOne trend that I've noticed recently is that I find myself discussing things with an LLM through a human proxy.
- fHr 2mo agosometimes I get asked stupid shit they can figure themself really so in quotes I do like "This is what gpt-6 luna gave me:" [quote]then in quote the almost full AI answer.[quote end]
- JackFr 2mo agoI enjoy, when arguing with friends, dumping an AI wall of text supporting my position and immediately following up with "What, no response? Argument over, I win."
- josefresco 2mo ago> The person on the other side has the same tools you do. Oh sweetie... I've been getting paid to "Google things" for 26 years. AI isn't going to change that transaction. When I was in high school it was assumed that everyone would be tech savvy. That didnt happen and in fact my kids were LESS tech savvy because of smartphones and refined aka dumbed down consumer tech.
- mattacular 2mo agoThe problem to me is, if people slowed down enough to carefully review and also rewrite model output in their own words (even if we're not counting code output), then what you have is a tool that probably makes you slower overall instead of much faster. I don't think that is a bad idea per se, but it is generally the opposite of how you're expected to perform with AI tools.
- josefritzishere 2mo agoCorrect. If I wanted slop, I'd ask the slop generator.
- OrangeMusic 2mo agoHow many of those websites do we need?
- Cameri 2mo agoI have non-English speaking coworkers that use AI to translate. This just comes as Karen-like behaviour: shaming people for using a tool in a way you don’t like. No way this individual is fun at parties!
- excentricus 2mo ago“Talk is cheap, show me the prompt” is my go to request for dealing with people’s AI generated responses. Voice and tone varies, of course, depending on the recipient. It feels like prompt(s) is where the actual thinking can be observed these days.
- madmecodes 2mo agocan relate, happening everywhere, Ideas and personal opinions matter more than ever. Recently, We conducted a hackathon and saw a lot of folks coming up with the same ideas, AI :)
- GreenLightGo 2mo agoWe really do live in an age of hypocrisy in pretty much every area of life. Of course it gets exhausting. Everything feels fake - movies, emotions, ambitions, even people themselves. For me, it’s important to keep my own identity and interests. And that’s not just about AI.
- aiandaguy 2mo ago[flagged]