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.
@bboreham.bsky.social The problem is you don't know if it is slop copy-paste or a genuine human response because — and it might be a shock to a lot of people who love TL:DR's and hate long one-piece messages instead of 50 one-sentence messages — people actually are capable of writing more than 10 words when they want to be understood correctly or to show their logic behind their answer. Also things are often complex and cannot be simplified down to a catchphrase.
Redis or Memcashed (example from the link)? I don't know the subject, I don't even know if it is entirely fictional for the purpose of example but I certainly know that the answer never will be just Redis or just Memcashed. Because it depends. Because people can have opinions. With a logic behind those opinions, how they arrived to stand with Redis/Memcashed. And logic — this is the bit that is important and cannot be simplified.
Also, AI style isn't the unique AI style. It is result of training. On human text.
I, myself, am AI sceptic. I don't use it, the more I hear about it the more reasons I have to hate it. This "no slop grenade" shit — is one of them. We can't even trust if a person wrote their genuine thoughts to you or if they just ctrl+c ctrl+v AI slop to you.
Oh, it is long? It has structure? It is generally grammatically correct? Welp, that's certainly AI because, quote: "Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste."
I call bullshit. I write essays in chat. All the time. Been doing it my whole life. And now, instead of "that was great explanation" or "thank you for clarity" I will get "here is no slop grenade, begone"? No in hell, I won't!
@bboreham.bsky.social and honestly, I don't know what to do with it. If we will punish those, who clearly state "I asked AI here is a copy paste" (and that kind of people thankfully still exist) — they simply will stop... leading with "I asked AI here is a copy paste" and just will copy paste without any indication whatsoever. And then you are stuck with questioning "is it AI or not?" each time you see a post longer than 20 words.
And noslopgrenade.com won't save you. People copy pasting AI responses will not understand your demand "not AI please". Especially in such a passive-aggressive manner as "here is a link with term 'slop' in it to a whole site dedicated to roasting what you just did with your AI thing because I can't be bothered to even do it myself". They will not understand. They wanted to help. They got from conversation, talked with the thing, sent result to you. They think they did work.
And this 3-posts long rumbling is a proof not only AI can write long.
@Lemonid there is skill involved in knowing whether to use it, that doesn't inherently make the tool useless or ill-conceived. "Batteries not included", bring your own senses for that.
The problem with the provided example is actually outlined on the page quite well: response from an LLM was generic and did not account for the implicit context of their jobs and what they're working on. Such a response implies, as written, that the sender cannot be bothered to do general research before asking another person for specifics in an act of disrespect for their time.
It's not the style. It's the substance. Or lack thereof, more specifically.
I pity the company culture of whoever gets to use this with enough of a frequency to justify building such a reusable response, but having worked for just under a decade in corporate before the rise of LLMs I am certain that some people will provide good cause for a response like this. It saddens me, but does not surprise at all.
daniel:// stenberg://
Bryan Boreham
Cytrynid
maxotaf
D:\side\>