You must log in or register to comment.
Ironically this page seems to be entirely made of slop, the whole text reeks of claudisms, as opposed to https://noslopgrenade.com/
I mean, to be fair, if I have to extend something to meet a word minimum I naturally ramble like a bot just filling it up with pointless junk.
Why I did so much better in “business writing” at uni, they rarely gave me minimums, only the need for usable content that met the criteria for a proper answer.
Yeah, but “Here’s what you just did” and the “What you sent instead says:” and especially the “The whole thing. Yes, even the bullets. Especially the bullets.”
I was just coming to comment this. Slop telling us not to paste slop. How nice.
Noslopgrenade also reads like a slop grenade
What really seals it is the ‘angry’ version, which is just the same message again but with different formatting. No human would label that as “the angry version” without the inclusion of at least one “fucking”.
Had the same feeling, there are no traces of the original text but there is https://github.com/khaosdoctor/dontquotetheai/commit/7f42249e3734068306775cd51bbe1bf02bf372e6
Em dashes being associated with AI is a disservice to them; in many cases they’re a far more suitable use of punctuation in interrupting a sentence than parentheses.
In this instance, however, the em dashes between the first and second parts of sentences would be better replaced with semicolons than commas, in my opinion.
Do this instead You can use AI. Seriously! It’s a great tool for drafting. Just read what it gave to you , then write your own version, or polish the text. Don’t be a middleman between it and the answer.
You’re still acting as the middle man for the answer. You didn’t answer fucking shit. If you, the human being, have nothing to add yourself, stay the fuck out of the conversation. Especially if the questions being posed are asking about other people’s personal experiences in something.
Yes this site is close to being good imo, but just falls short and misses the mark. Even if someone tells me verbally, “I asked AI and it said…” I mentally check out and disregard all they say lol
The other day I was out with two of my friends.
My one friend thought their car had a small issue. Me and my other friend are more knowledgeable about cars. We were like, “oh don’t worry about that, that’s normal.” First friend kept fretting until they looked it up on AI and AI said… the same thing that us, the two people standing next to them had said. They were so skeptical after what we said, and so relieved when AI said it was fine. I was so annoyed lmao.
Yes, and that paragraph completely contradicts an earlier one.
It might not look like it, but the person on the other side has the same tools you do. If they wanted the generic answer, they’d have it in a couple of seconds.
They’re not asking you because they want you to “polish the text” from AI. They could also do that themselves.
Personally “I checked with Claude” invalidates anything you just said, even if it was properly researched and legitimately correct. As soon as you invoke the slopbots I lose any regard for your answer.
It’s basically the “appeal to authority” fallacy only worse because Claude is neither an authority nor a provider of hard info.
Nor appealing!
This is the reason why you simply don’t tell anyone that you have used AI… it’s the same if you researched Wikipedia or your grandpas 1950s copy of Encyclopedia Britannica: It simply doesn’t matter where you got your information from as long as it is valid
You are so right.
I checked with Claude
You guys are the worst. I’m now convinced all of you complaining have nothing going on. Every industry is using this shit. I was just watching this video of a big musician YouTuber using a vibe coded app that lets you create guitar tones by what you tell it. Kojima did an ad with Prada using it. You can be the curmudgeon all you fucking want but go do it to the big guys and quit fighting this bullshit culture war against low hanging fruit. You miserable fucks.
Every industry is using this shit.
So I work for a landscaping company. How is AI going to help me move piles of dirt, or rake up leaves?
We already tried using it to generate site plans/maps and communicate with clients, and it’s worse than useless for both of those things. What else you got for me?
BTW, I’m not genuinely asking for business advice here, I’m pushing back against your assertion that every industry is using this shit. I’d go as far as to say that AI has no relevance to most workplaces.
“Vibe coded app that lets you create guitar tones by what you tell it” buddy, I’ve played guitar for years, and this sounds silly as hell to me. Describing the tone I want in English words sounds much more difficult than just twisting some knobs. I think the youtuber guy may just be trying to sell a product.
TL:DR. AI summary says he’s saying AI is popular
Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?
Because we don’t see all that research, we just see a comment where you said you asked the hallucination machine, so now, if I want to use anything you said, I have to go duplicate all that research before I can trust it.
So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.
Which is valid. But is not what you said.
More accurately, if you claim you used Claude, I will assume absolutely anything produced with it has a high chance of being rife with errors. If you provided citations for every last detail and then said Claude put it together, I wouldn’t trust it until I’ve personally verified the sources because not only will it hallucinate details, it’ll hallucinate sources. Anything produced with it is inherently untrustworthy.
As the one says above it is “Appeal to Authority” by adding Claude, or ChatrGPT for the more base level folks, from what I have seen.
Somehow they assume that putting that in will somehow make their words more valid, but hearing it makes me question everything, and dismiss potential valid points made alongside it.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I read it as meaning the definition of the person producing the content of “properly researched and legitimately correct” rather than one’s own.
Content produced by somebody who claims it has been “properly researched and legitimately correct” and that person thinks Claude is a proper research and validation tool, should be treated as invalid until proven otherwise.
It’s like when a Junior level professional comes to you with something and says “I made sure this is all correct” - one can’t really trust that the thing is indeed “all correct”.
It might not look like it, but the person on the other side has the same tools you do. If they wanted the generic answer, they’d have it in a couple of seconds. They asked you because they wanted your take… Your context, your taste, your judgment.
But how many times do “we” (i.e.: IT, tech support for family) end up having to search for answers for people they don’t look it up themselves? I’m not saying to always spit back AI answers, but to say to not do that because people have the same tools… not a great argument.
You can use AI. Seriously! It’s a great tool for drafting. Just read what it gave to you , then write your own version, or polish the text. Don’t be a middleman between it and the answer.
This website is AI entryism
“Cover up your plagiarism by altering some words here and there so that people won’t immediately pick up on how pathetic and pretentious you are.”
AI bros don’t have any filters.
I’ve found some people just pasting AI answer in an discussion we were having in a forum.
I straight up said, “if I wanted to talk with chatgpt I know the website”. And stopped the conversation right there.
I don’t even know what was the point of that.
https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/ is more thoughtful and interesting
I don’t love getting pasted AI, but those motherfuckers that paste it and don’t even read it are the absolute worst.
steve: I need you to help me because jen is having problems with this AWS policy being wrong it’s not linked to that account and the closest thing I can find it this account over here but that doesn’t look right, just let me know if you want me to make changes to that policy.
It’s just some fucking disconnected stub of a policy from 10 years ago when we changed direction real quick, those accounts don’t even exist.
me: jen, what’s wrong? jen: I logged out and I can’t get back in, the links are missing.
me: here, use this URL. jen, thanks! i’m in!
If you’re going to use AI, ok whatever, just make sure it’s fucking right!
Or maybe just don’t use AI at all? It’s not a reliable source of information, it’s unsustainable in terms of resources consumed, it’s unethically trained and it makes everyone’s lives worse.
By AI do you mean LLMs specifically? All LLMs, or just the corporate ones? Because I fully agree that ChatGPT, Gemini, etc. truly are awful. But this is also catching genuinely useful technological advances in with the wide net. AI isn’t just LLMs, LLMs aren’t just chat bots. And claiming a technologies worst implementations are indicative of the entire tech would see just about every single technology ever made fall in the same category.
Obviously I’m using AI here as a shorthand for (all) LLMs, like the author of the article. The term AI is, on its own, so broad and meaningless, as to be entirely useless without a proper context to scope it.
No LLM (corporate or not) can be a reliable source of information due to the architectural limitations of LLMs.
Then you don’t actually understand what LLMs are, and you’re using the term as a short-hand to mean chat bots. I’m not trying to be rude, but you need to understand that is just a fact, if you think LLMs can only be chat-bots, and can only be corporate, and can only be trained unethically.
Would it surprise you to know that quite a lot of genuine advances have been made by using LLMs that don’t speak any language you’d recognize? Evo 1 and Evo 2 for example “Speak” genome sequences. There are other models that have been used to improve weather modeling, and animal behaviour analysis.
You’re right that AI is a very broad term, but so is LLM. The problem is that ignorant people see “AI” and automatically assume it’s bad because of the connotation with Chat-Bots.
if you think LLMs can only be chat-bots, and can only be corporate, and can only be trained unethically
Don’t put words in my mouth.
1 and Evo 2 for example “Speak” genome sequences. There are other models that have been used to improve weather modeling, and animal behaviour analysis.
Evo 1 and 2 are deep learning models (I think Genomic Language Models would be the correct term), but not Large Language Models. I’m willing to bet neither are the “other” models you’re mentioning. They’re unlikely to be trained on vast amounts of human text for purposes of natural language interaction.
Besides, none of those “other models” are in any way applicable to either the OP or the critique of using LLMs as a source of information.
This is my point. They are LLMs. That is not an opinion or a debatable point. They are categorically, definitionally, LLMs. You don’t understand what LLMs are, because LLMs ARE deep learning models, and instead of taking the time to actually learn about the technology you’re responding to my corrections with hostility.
You and I are on the same side. Chat-bots ARE harmful. But putting that label on a technology as a whole is purely tribe-based fear that is already causing the spread of unfounded fear and misinformation.
And the claim wasn’t “Don’t use AI as a source of information,” which I agree with. It was “Don’t use any AI,” which you clarified to mean LLMs. So this is very much pertinent.
You don’t understand what LLMs are, because LLMs ARE deep learning models, and instead of taking the time to actually learn about the technology you’re responding to my corrections with hostility.
You’re claiming that I don’t understand technology while seemingly claiming that because LLMs are a type of deep learning, then all deep learning models are LLMs.
Evo was trained on genomic sequences, not human text. Per Wikipedia:
A large language model (LLM) is an AI model (typically a neural network) trained on a vast amount of text for natural language processing tasks, especially language generation.
Genomic sequences are not natural language. Ergo, “definitionally” Evo 2 is not an LLM.
While its StripedHyena2 architecture is very similar to LLMs, it does not use the same Generative Pretrained Transformer architecture associated with LLMs (per: https://docs.nvidia.com/bionemo-recipes/2.6.3/interactives/illustrated-evo2/index.html ).
My hate of LLMs is certainly not misinformed. It’s only tribe-based in that I care for humanity.
I did not say all deep learning algorithms are LLMs, I said all LLMs are deep learning algorithms. It’s a nested hierarchy, that relationship only runs one way.
Yes. Evo was trained on text strings of genomic data. That’s what I was trying to say was the misunderstanding. LLMs do not require language as you and I would recognize it. If you think that calling them “Large Language Models,” is misleading, I kinda agree, but then we can start arguing semantics about why scientists name anything the way they do. Dark matter isn’t actually dark, and probably isn’t matter. Dark energy isn’t dark. There was no explosion during the big bang.
If you’re using colloquial word usage and demanding scientific advances follow your expectations, you’re going to have a bad time.
But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re 100% correct, and that Evo is not an LLM. Rather, it’s something extremely close, save for a few differences.
People are already angry at the researchers for “Using AI to develop super-bugs,” or saying the genuinely universal “AI has no uses!” And earnestly failing to differentiate between the shit-bot that makes deep-fakes, and the AI designed to identify cancers.
That is why I absolutely reject your disrespectful framing that by defending a technology, and NOT it’s worst uses, I’m somehow opposite to “care(ing) for humanity.”
The actual technology behind Evo and ChatGPT is structurally the same. The methods of training a model on genomic data or weather patterns is indistinguishable from training it on stolen media. The difference is the uses, and targets.
it makes everyone’s lives worse
that part is untrue.
Fair enough, it makes Jensen Huang’s life better, I suppose.
Mine too ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Just like all those developers from the study who thought they were 19% faster but were, in fact, 10% slower?
If that study is the only thing you have as an argument you won’t get very far (though it is worth it to read the thoughts of some of the participants: https://domenic.me/metr-ai-productivity/).
It is very helpful to me as a developer: I can now write entire custom tools, one-off scripts and services for myself I otherwise wouldn’t (because it would take too much time and too much effort), it catches a lot of logic bugs in code reviews as a first pass, it’s good at generating unit-tests, etc, etc.
But coding is not all there is. To me as an immigrant, AI-based translation is a godsend. Same for writing scary-looking letters to government officials or applications for apartment viewings. Same for learning a language, actually. When I was looking for a new job - I used ChatGPT’s automation to filter out crappy job postings and parse feedback on Glassdoor for the interesting ones. Like, genuinely, if we imagine for a moment that there’s zero moral and environmental issues with AI and you still can’t think of any possible applications of it for yourself you’re either just not doing anything or you’re dead.
Do you really think there’s only one study that shows that AI increases feelings of productivity, while also slowing down productivity?
If it is catching that many bugs, you are writing shit code or your review system blows. Likely both. The AI is about as likely to flag real bugs as it is to flag made up shit, but I still have to waste my fucking time verifying and proving the bot wrong. And you know what it didn’t do? Save me time. Because I had to verify everything it said for no fucking reason.
And my fucking god, don’t let it generate Tests. You get the worst Asserts imaginable. Goddamn. If you aren’t writing your unit tests, then you won’t know what you are testing.
Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?
Legitimately stupid.
But, sure, take out all the slave labor and environmentally devastating issues (a thing that only huge losers do because they are usually friendless assholes that think they’re as cool as Elon Musk and are unintentionally right), and you are left with a machine that is sometimes right but still cognitively damaging.
Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?
Honest question: You have not tried DeepL, right?
Incompetent or ignorant person will post the output and hope it confirms their beliefs without them even understanding it.
It sounds smart so it must support my side
Modern “let me google that for you”
I’ll wait for the “Fuck you for using AI you lazy twat” website.
if someone pastes text from llm, i wont even read it.
My response to one person was “If you couldn’t take the time to write it, what makes you think I’m going to take the time to read it.”
I just don’t use AI at all for this. I only use it for formatting my code, auditing my code, and research (that I verify). I would never use it for communication.
The website is to send to a friend or colleague who responds to you with AI. Similar to nohello.net
I use it for skincare advice and it’s shockingly going very well because I know enough about skincare to correct it and it can put some stuff together that I didn’t think of. My husband is just like you, for code and research that he verifies.
Our neighbor tried to text us some confrontational shit about why he didn’t owe us $900 for a fence he agreed to and it was so, so bad. It was 4 paragraphs of just AI cringe. Embarrassing as hell.
I use it for communication because I am able to find better sentence structure and words with it and find best options suitable and more in line with what I want to convey.
I never have this problem of people giving me AI responses to my questions.
What I do have a problem with is people who do this:
Just ignore them. They will catch on eventually.
Yeah, I straight up don’t respond until they’ve asked/said the thing that they’re contacting me for.
Usually they finish their thought without me ever needing to respond. I did have one coworker who just… never said anything else. That’s also a win.
Just don’t reply. Been doing it for years in both personal and work contexts.
It has been an interesting experience telling people who only say hello that they’re being rude.
Some people will eventually understand that they’re wasting your time (when they clearly have something they want) by waiting for you to answer (and effectively have to wait on them) before they respond with what the ask is when you could have just answered it the first time.
Those people are just as bad as the ones who just send “hey, can I ask you a question?” and then nothing else until you acknowledge them.
I just say hi back and check my messages again in a half hour. They blew their chance!
I have people I just ignore until there’s two notifications
