The old social contract was that the writer had done more work than they were asking of the reader, but this is torn to shreds with LLM-generated text.

They might be wrong and it's not fine, and I have a few people I know who have a much higher tolerance than I do for LLM outputs, and I'm aware of that when they send them to me and I often reject it.

But it's a totally different category than someone who only skimmed what they sent me.

If someone sends me something they read and digested and think it's good, but I don't think it is, then I'm not upset with them. If someone sends me something without that first step, then I am.

(Of course they could tell me they didn't read it, and that's fine too, I can choose to read it or not.)

Also the distinction between whether they read/wrote it is nil. Either is disrespectful.

> You don't know that they didn't read it!

If someone sends me AI slop to read then I am going to assume and behave as if they didn’t read it until proven otherwise.

It is the responsibility of the sender to proactively say “I read this and stand by it as at least mostly correct and reasonable”.

They are also free to say “AI slop have not yet proof read”. Then I have an informed choice.

here's my comment ran thru ChatGPT, I hope you dont read it!

""" I don’t really understand the bandwagoning around this either. I’m a terrible writer, so I generally don’t write much. But if I could give an AI my thoughts and have it turn them into something clear, readable, and actually worth reading, why would that suddenly make the ideas themselves less valuable?

You’d be dismissing my thoughts—not because they’re bad, but because AI helped me express them. That just seems like reflexive “AI bad” nonsense.

And that’s before you even get to people who speak English as a second language. Are we really saying their ideas somehow count for less if they use AI to communicate them more clearly? That makes no sense to me. """

Did you even read it through carefully once? If you couldn't bother to craft it, why should I read?

> Not anti-AI. Pro-giving-a-damn.

AI isn't the problem. The problem is that people are sending text without proof reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49849134

Yes, it's the best model right now if you want cheaper than Astra, but they increased the verbosity again!

It just keeps dumping whole novels on me. Its writing might be an improvement over the ludicrous Opus 5 speak, but much of the grating way of speaking is still there.

It's been three days since Tuesday and I'm already tired of Opus 5.5.

For written work, i think we're so new that over a couple years two things will happen 1 - people get kinda used to it (frog in pot?) 2 - the AI will keep getting better and reducing these cringey sounding tells

What will be tough is finding that line of "does this paragraph add value to X" but that applies whether a person wrote it or an AI.

Surely that's something that can be trained for.

Probably not a typical response-- but perhaps it's useful to keep in mind that every day there are many people being victimized by attackers using AI (and shitty corporations.. wait I repeat myself). So in addition to the ordinary signals of indifference, ignorance, and carelessness that hitting someone with obvious LLM slop implies you'll also be accidentally taking on the voice of some people's abusers, and pick up the spillover effects of their impressions.

This can happen randomly, of course, -- picking up a chose phrase that someone else used-- but slop isn't just a random match. Right now an AI written piece (especially from claude) will identify itself over and over and over again in a way that wouldn't happen with another writer that happened to share some cultural background.

that's why I keep all logging thoroughly disabled across all systems.

Saves a lot of room.

I don't get these new logic statements everyone is coming up with against AI systems.

If the excuse is "I meant literature!" well then I argue that where that line is drawn in the sand is exactly the question these kind of black and white expressions strolling entirely past.

(and that's actually the important question; where does it become neglectful for a human to throw an AI into the drivers seat wrt human read media?)

Would you extend that approach to the conversations you have with AI? If not, why not?

I mean, you didn't write that, you're just repeating a meme for the 1 millionth time. People have always been saying things they didn't write, and AI is just one new way.