Mastodawn

Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.

We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.

Show thread

Billy O'Neal 3d ago

@bagder Pasting an AI response as long as it's accurate and the person pasting it clearly understands what's going on can be OK. It's the clearly "this person is being a crappy conduit to a chat bot somewhere" behavior that sucks.

Show thread

Kumar McMillan 3d ago

@malwareminigun @bagder even when it’s accurate, though, it’s unpleasant to read — it’s overly verbose, riddled with irrelevant minutiae, and devoid of conversational inflection.

Show thread

Billy O'Neal 3d ago

@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"

I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem

Show thread

Billy O'Neal

@kumarvibe Sorry for repeated posts, I'm having difficulty putting what I'm trying to get at into words. Maybe something like:

> The point is, don't make the maintainer wade through output to get to the point. If you didn't want to read it, the maintainer probably doesn't want to either.

In vcpkg we get lots of submissions that "look" like they're AI that are fine but we also get slop. I would not want to encourage changing the submissions that are good into having the submitter restate what the LLM said but worse, or omit bits that are important justification. But I would want them to prune the AI output of irrelevant slop garbage.