Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > (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.
by znort_ - Ironically, almost all the content on that page sounds AI generated to me!by su8898
- Layout, 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.by TonyStr
- Yup, that's the biggest joke, the website is not worth the weight.by suyash
- Yup, I think the author needs to take their own advice and invest some time into putting it into their own words.by tmountain
- > 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.
by mromanuk - Ever 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.
by plumbees - You 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.
by ActionHank - I 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.
by gexla - Translating 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.by bkaae
- There'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.)
by andai - Same but shorter: https://noslopgrenade.com/by mkayokay
- This was recently on the front page as well https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/by arealaccount
- AI;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.
- Completely 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!
- People need to internalize what Bernie Mac says here [1].by rglover
- I 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.by Cameri
- Once per decade or so, a man decides to tell the truth, and gets his life destroyed.by andai
- People don’t rely on AI because they’re worried about political correctness. That’s a pretty weak assumption.by gcr
- yes, 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"
by RugnirViking - > especially the bullets
DS9 Garak "especially the lies" reference maybe?
by moffkalast - It's pretty obviously AI written in parts at least.
ZeroGPT says 21.5% generated.
by lelanthran - I had the same feeling. The terrible metaphors smells like Claude.by bjourne
- The angry version is even more obviously AIby bananzamba
- I actually suspected it from the title, so I didn’t even open TFA.
The advice in the title is a cop-out of someone who thinks writing with AI is fine actually, as long as you just don‘t paste the whole thing. In other words, it sounds like someone who thinks they can outsmart AI-writing by using AI differently.
I was open to the fact that this might be a clickbait (so I read the comments first) but from this post, it looks like my intuition was right.
To clarify, I am a firm believer you should not use AI for any part of your writing, no AI-drafts, no AI-skeletons, no AI-research, no AI-nothing. AI pollutes your writing, and just makes it bad however you use it.
A simpler rule of thumb (which I abide to) is just don‘t use AI at all. It is bad for your brain, and highly addictive, and also bad for society and the environment. When you use AI you are only putting bad stuff out in the world and supporting te AI-companies, who are profiting off of all this damage they are causing.
by runarberg - Yeah, it's obvious enough on its own, but I'll add that Pangram also thinks it's 100% fully AI generated.
Hypocritical to say the least, given the message.
by Nition - Yeah it seems pretty LLM to me. Even the extra emphasis on stuff via bold/highlights is there. Kinda whack. Also the “angry” one is just not at all angry or offensive. Probably because there’s a limit to how rude Claude will getby chamomeal
- I’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
by seer - If you're absolving the other person from any understanding of the issue and the alternative is "stuff broken" then yes what you say makes sense. But that's an incredibly low bar and one would have to say - that's not a colleague, that's an end user type relationship.by scandox
- I take your point but I have two counterpoints:
1. I've experienced both (ai paste slop & ai providing helpful context that would otherwise have been absent) but the former has been a much bigger problem than the purported benefits of the latter
2. before the advent of LLMs, I had fairly strong contrarian opinions on the latter (clueless users asking questions with no detail) that I still hold to this day. A good proxy for my opinions on this is that I think https://nohello.net/ is a crutch for undersocialised (or overworked/near-burnout OR undiagnosed autistic) engineers & should not be normalised. The origin of this sentiment is users entering a quiet IRC room & saying "hello", then leaving & not being around when someone eventually replies: in that context nohello is pragmatic, but taking it beyond that to modern high-frequency realtime chat is an antisocial overstep. Leading with the entire context of your query may have some practical benefits but they're honestly overstated in exchange for killing natural social tendencies towards human dialogue. Similarly, a non-technical user giving you zero info about a problem is an opportunity for conversation & mutual education. It's relationship-building & helps build a foundation for further interactions with this person. It was never a problem in the first place; "solving" it is just another milestone on the road toward de-socialising humanity.
by lucideer