The only thing they missed was the invention of ozempic.

I didn&#x27;t expect wall-e to become so close to current reality

i’m not doubting this, but do you know if there are any studies on this already?

What&#x27;s even more worrying is that I&#x27;ve heared plenty of people defend it as, &quot;Younger generations are just intelligent in different ways compared to older generations.&quot;I&#x27;m halfway through my 30&#x27;s and this downturn started with my generation, halfway through the 80&#x27;s. I hope I&#x27;m missing something, because I still need to see a benefit for lower attention spans, lower comprehensive reading skills and lower critical thinking capabilities.

IQ is calibrated so that the average IQ is 100. If the average IQ is going down, something has gone very wrong somewhere

it&#x27;s already happening. IQ is already stagnating or even going down

I think you are confusing machines with motors. Many machines do things that simply are not possible without. A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work than walking, but it enables you to go faster than you can run. Menually operated sewing machines produce stitches that would be infeasible by hand.Motorising any of those machines could be considered lazy, though.

This is totally wrong.Some machines are capability amplifiers.Other machines are shit puking buck passing time sinks.

Not exactly. A drawing program could just create a new &quot;blank slate&quot; that substitutes some old skill requirements for new skills. The key point is that SOME machines create a sufficient mass of &quot;blank slate&quot;-like environments for active creativity and others (like AI) only diminish that room for creatvity to flourish. The danger is creating and using machines of the latter type.

Human intelligence evolved without technology, so, no.

Similar to physical exercise and machines replacing it, I think we&#x27;re going to see extremes on both ends.

And I know fuck all about subsistence farming - something most people&#x27;s ancestors understood deeply. Different worlds, different requirements.

&gt; With all that assistance I believe modern engineers are way more productive and capable.That isn&#x27;t what was asked. The capabilities of &quot;human + machine&quot; clearly are increasing, but the comments above posit that as a result the average capabilities of &quot;human (sans machine)&quot; may decrease. The relative value of each change is far from clear.

It’s tempting to use what engineers were 70 years ago vs now as an analogy. From a technical point of view, I was told we would be struggling to solve the maths and physics exercises our grand fathers took as students in college, and they had to deal with additional disciplines that disappeared like industrial design (ie drawing blueprints by hand) or manual calculus. So it is tempting to think that the level of engineers has gone down.But a modern engineer has computers, math software, can code, has all the knowledge of the internet at their fingertips. With all that assistance I believe modern engineers are way more productive and capable.

A technical book can be so relaxing (unless e.g. too highly technical... think quantum mechanics). Imagine 50k words on an interesting tech topic without a context switch!

Not sure about de-evolution (devolution is the word I think), just a change in how people and brains work - but you could already see this happening the past few decades. I can&#x27;t read a technical book or documentation end to end ever since google results came up with specific answers within seconds.

Strawman. There&#x27;s very little pressure, if any, to drink all the time. On the other hand, businesses are pressing employees to constantly use AI tools. The sad fact is that in many cases, they do result in faster work, but at the same time they carry so many negative effects for the individuals.

Alcohol has existed for zillions of years, but not literally every person is a useless drunkard.You could consider it a class of predator on people who have vulnerabilities that can give way to dependence on the LLM and an inability to function. It could be seen in that light. The underlying problem is being described in that light.

It makes me so angry that an entire branch of &quot;science&quot; gets to just take data and go &quot;I dunno man, maybe kids are just dumber&quot;. There&#x27;s so much of this in social science. Take some measurable thing, and then just wildly speculate about the cause of it in an entirely untestable way, and then test that theory in ways that absolutely do not justify the conclusions. At the very least, the whole field should get a lesson in how to communicate the certainty of their theories and conclusions. You&#x27;ve got some guys hanging around couching their uncertainty when they&#x27;re banging sub atomic particles together at the speed of light and then you&#x27;ve got some social science bro being like &quot;If you move that checkbox on that form to the bottom it&#x27;ll be way more effective, trust me bro I&#x27;ve hacked how people think&quot;.

Yeah it&#x27;s as old as time to be honest.When Plato complains about writing diminishing our faculties for memorizing things, it&#x27;s sometimes treated as an example of how we&#x27;ve always pointlessly worried about these things, but he was absolutely correct and the transition from an oral culture to a written culture has absolutely demolished those capabilities.Writing as a technology ended up having strong upsides that mostly made up for that (in particular our ability to communicate across distances and time, to read Plato&#x27;s concerns without 100 generations of Chinese whispers), but it was a trade-off, as most technologies tend to be.

Arguably we already have, if you concentrate on intelligence rates since 1975: the reverse Flynn affect. Those who grew up about that time no longer had to generate their own entertainment through storytelling, make their own music, calculate things mentally: everyday they had music, entertainment pumped into their homes, a way to avoid athematic, etc. And now we&#x27;re evening thinking a lot less in our jobs, not even practicing the skills we learnt. Intelligence is only going to decrease.

<pre><code> Do you guys think we&#x27;re going to see a de-evolution of human beings due to technology?
</code></pre>
The gap between people who are willing to commit the hours to learn something and those who prefer the path of least resistance is getting bigger.I’d like to add that for hardware development (in my experience) it’s been non-stop double checking because of hallucinations. To the point where I don’t use it for weeks.

Heavy LLM users still have to spot bad assumptions and catch errors. Scrolling social media seems like a much better example of mental atrophy.

go &amp; solve Millennium Prize Problems motherfucker

I think we&#x27;re going to see a sort of &quot;intelligence caste&quot; form. People who overuse AI and atrophy their brain&#x27;s ability to think will be on the bottom, while the inverse of those people will be on top.This is somewhat good news because it means the end (to some extent) of the Peter Principle. My hope, though, is that this doesn&#x27;t turn into an actual caste system, but I&#x27;m not holding my breath. I think that&#x27;s where this all goes: we&#x27;re in the process of the world&#x27;s intelligence being strip-mined and resold back to the world at a premium. The only ones who &quot;survive&quot; long-term are the ones who refuse to submit all of their mental faculties to AI.That inevitably leads to a rapid degeneration of the species. Only way to avoid that outcome entirely is to remind people that their brain is valuable and they need to exercise it just like they would the rest of their body.

&gt; Do you guys think we&#x27;re going to see a de-evolution of human beings due to technology?A de-evolution of culture for the sake of efficiency, sure. The entire culture will shift to a greater degree of superficiality, not just because of the lack of deep understanding of what they&#x27;re doing, but because AI will condition (and is conditioning) people to want the more superficial stuff.This isn&#x27;t a phenomenon exclusive to AI - but AI is at the apex of it and is the worst we&#x27;ve seen so far because it, much more than anything else, targets the mental domain whereas most previous automations have targeted the physical but the mental as well to a lesser extent.The end result is a huge amount of technical debt that simply can&#x27;t be recovered and a huge increase in myopia that will prevent us from truly understanding and solving serious problems that will undoubtedly occur.Most people can&#x27;t see this because they&#x27;re already addicted to the dopamine hit of the tech, but it&#x27;s one reason I&#x27;m 100% anti-AI and I hate it with an immense passion.

I disagree that it&#x27;s necessarily laziness.I work in the embedded space, and I routinely have to work with technologies I&#x27;m initially not familiar with. Internet searches are very hit and miss. So, is &quot;AI&quot;. I generally use every tool at my disposal to try to get my foot in the door so I can understand better questions to ask and get the technical information I need to do my job.I absolutely have no problem with someone replying to my question with a response from Claude. I appreciate them telling me the source, so I can assign an appropriate level of trust in the information.

Well, apparently, our brain sizes have shrunk something like 30% over the last 10,000 years. This is primarily because ancient man needed to be a jack of all trades just to survive in the wilderness. Once civilization and specialization took over we just didn’t need all that processing power since a lot of that work was just outsourced to civilization and society.

Some people use it to think less, some people use it to learn more.

Human evolution does not occur in a vecuum.  I suspect there will still be preasure to get smarter (how ever way you define that) because of competition with other humans.

No. I think it&#x27;ll mostly cause a dip in the average intelligence of knowledge workers.We will recover when we realize the valuable workers in a field are the ones who want to be there and actively increase their knowledge rather than offload work.

If you create a machine for laziness you&#x27;re going to get lazy people. It&#x27;s only going to get worse I&#x27;m afraid.Do you guys think we&#x27;re going to see a de-evolution of human beings due to technology?

I figure they are being optimized to write code&#x2F;functions and not prose so all text is getting more code like.

I think they&#x27;re overcorrecting for being too long-winded in previous generations (and still, in some cases). I guess this is a hard balance to get right.

ChatGPT is still plenty verbose by default IMX.

I&#x27;m pretty sure the other answers are wrong and it&#x27;s a side effect of RL (see thinking machines post about inkling training). It&#x27;s also exacerbated in fable and sol--I think it&#x27;s token efficiency effect--bc it&#x27;s about to reason with fewer tokens the density of the token information goes up.

Why are LLMs producing this super tense text more often now? Is it because they are being optimized to use fewer tokens?

claude said u cant call its users meat proxies. Now back to watching &#x27;ow my balls!&#x27;

I am sure this will lead to can you dumb this up prompt which will miss the important details

I often use it to simplify &amp; target my responses, and avoid over-sharing technical details.At the same time, I use the Q&amp;A cycle to improve my vetted knowledge base, which I also share (and can reference in answers).

&quot;Writing is nature&#x27;s way of showing you how sloppy your thinking is.&quot;
-- Richard Guindon

I try to not use AI to write text that&#x27;s meant to be read by other people. I might use AI to understand and research beforehand, but the writing is mine. The most important reason is that writing allows me to check whether I actually understand what I am trying to communicate. Too many times I&#x27;ve started writing something and once the ideas need to be put in writing, I notice that there are concepts that I&#x27;m missing or that I don&#x27;t really understand.Second is that the LLMs are not going to have original input, they&#x27;re just going to expand what I say. So at that point I might as well just send the prompt or the assorted collection of ideas and others can expand on their own. Seems more honest and efficient as I&#x27;m not just pushing a wall of slop.

It’s truly unhinged behavior that has me questioning how much longer I want to remain in the industry. You always knew that 80% of the people on any team or in any large company just didn’t care. But now you see who these people are out in the open.I had a guy with more senior title say “I love the new api and cli. Is anyone working on the docs? Because I can take a crack at them” then goes to generate 12 markdown files, and shares them with me. All the cli commands and APIs are wrong. I was very confused. You have the api spec, and the cli. You couldn’t point your agent to them to validated the commands and the api? He replies “oh that’s a good idea. I just described them to the agent and thought you could review and fix mistakes”

will point my phone with an AI app back to process the output

Had a senior exec pick up his phone, punch some words into AI, then as-it-was-generating-a-response flip it around and put it in front of me.This shit has progressed well past seriousness and into the absurd

Yep. I&#x27;m categorically ignoring messages and PRs that are obviously AI written.

I will refuse to read such messages or documents. At the very minimum, i want a human-written TLDR-style summary to ensure the sender has read their own slop.

I wonder if there is something like nohello.net but norawllmoutput.net

&gt; and it spit out this 300 line response. Can you read it for me and see if it’s right?If I get a request like this on a day when I don&#x27;t feel sufficiently quixotic, I say sure and just put it through an LLM myself - if they don&#x27;t bother to re-read it, why should I? This does not have a great promise for a future of work, of course. Also, in my teams, I explicitly tell people not to do that.

I think a lot of that is people who were always very insecure because they’re mediocre engineers. Previously asking questions or not understanding something was a bit painful but now you can hear “you’re absolutely right!” and make progress all day every day.
Until you need to interact with actual humans and that’s why you try to minimise it, hiding behind ai generated content.

&gt; Au psychosis is getting seriously outrageous at this pointSo... back to a currency backed by gold?

&gt;Thankfully I&#x27;m a dev and thus aren&#x27;t in the blast radius of that genius ideayes you are

He&#x27;s basically asking other people to do his job for him, because he knows that the AI doesn&#x27;t truly do it well enough.I would say to him that if he wants me to do his job, he needs to pay me his salary.

On the contrary, I kind of love this as form of malicious compliance. I&#x27;d wager money that the PO&#x2F;BAs have been demanding &quot;comprehensive documentation&quot; for a very long time, and now they are getting what they&#x27;ve asked for good and hard.

When some people call this &quot;Verification Debt&quot; or something similar, that is setting the Overton Window upon this phenomena adversely upon the verifiers. I call it an application of Brandolini&#x27;s Law:&quot;The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.&quot;&quot;Until you put in at least the same amount of energy required to verify the AI output as you are asking others to put in to verify it, the AI output you are wielding must be considered bullshit. Really, it should be based upon the verification requestor&#x27;s historical trust score and how many human verifiers are looped in. A Verification Tax, so to speak:The energy the creator must spend (Ec) is determined by a function of the number of reviewers requested (N) and the historical trust score of that creator&#x27;s AI outputs (T).Ec = N * (1 - T)

Everyone I know, including myself, is simultaneously extremely pro-AI and anti-AI for this reason.I always put myself in the shoes of the reader when relaying Claudeslop. I either use it as a reference and write it by hand or make Claude edit it 10+ times until it&#x27;s conveying only the needed information, and in simple, clear words, and without annoying Claudeisms.

AI be used to make reviewing it easy, eh?

I am that person on the blast radius. The most effective response I have found is dumping the documents into the AI, and asking it to review them, then posting back the AI response.Any resistance to this is met with a &quot;But I&#x27;m also using AI as the board demands!&quot;

It&#x27;s okay, when enough terrible decisions impact a company they tend to do really poorly thought out layoffs so you&#x27;ll be in the blast radius sooner or later.Too bad there&#x27;s no real accountability.

How correct is the documentation? You seem to be coming from the same standpoint as a lot of people in this thread which is &quot;don&#x27;t make me read AI output, I can prompt the model myself&quot; but what this person is doing sounds much more sane - have highly skilled subject matter experts prompt the AI once, generate all the answers you might want, and review them carefully for correctness using all available context.That sounds far preferable to individuals independently asking questions that are not covered by the documentation and independently reviewing a bunch of potentially hallucinated slop that no one else will ever read.

Oh man, this resonates. I feel like I’m starting to drown in an endless sea of overly verbose documentation that the originators themselves never read. If you ever have a question, they’ll just point you to the docs “they wrote.”

At my dayjob there is a person spearheading ai across the enterprise.They generated lots of documentation across the whole stack and now makes all PO&#x2F;BAs read it if it&#x27;s correct. So not just 300 lines - he unironically generated thousands of lines of &quot;documentation&quot; and is now making hundreds of people review it for himComplete brainrotAu psychosis is getting seriously outrageous at this pointThankfully I&#x27;m a dev and thus aren&#x27;t in the blast radius of that genius idea

The psychosis is largely coming from the top.

It seems that this is largely coming from higher ups who are probably (consciously or not) testing the waters for LLMs being able to replace the people they&#x27;re dumping the walls of text on. I don&#x27;t mean in any sort of malicious penny pinching scheme either, but simply people wanting to be able to do things quickly and as close to their own demands as possible, while getting rid of the &#x27;middle man.&#x27; It just so happens that as LLMs become ever more capable of delivering on e.g. software tasks, software engineers start to become the middle men.

Because engineers don’t decide on hiring and firing. The managers all have KPIs to transform the org into AI-native. This is the kind of behavior that organizations encourage right now.

what is often overlooked in corporate culture: if you take a step back, two coworkers refusing to cooperate, regardless of the reason, is a typical &quot;corporate kindergarten&quot; scenario for the manager to take care of.To avoid rushed or incorrect decisions, conflicts intentionally move through gradual escalation. If someone behaves unprofessionally, for example by submitting a code review they do not understand, the first step is to establish the likely cause.They may ultimately be at fault, but that does not absolve the surrounding environment. The culture may be toxic, deadlines unrealistic, or communication poor.The best course of action for someone directly affected by uncooperative coworkers is to avoid assuming ill intent. Get them on a call and let them explain their pull request, however trivial the issue may seem. Even if the gesture is misinterpreted, you still have a far stronger position than righteous indignation.

That would make execs who asked staff to tokenmaxx look even sillier than they already are.

I get it’s annoying and I personally hate it but firing someone for it is ridiculous. Are you expecting everyone to rewrite  everything from an AI before they share it because that doesn’t sound a good use of company time either.

Let me give you a scenario and see if it is in this same fireable offense line:An Ops person who deals with company code base but is not a SWE in the code base regularly has to work around issues with this software (They are OPs). However they have read access to the source.In the past, they see a bug and open a jira with how it was found for the dev team, and it may or may not ever get looked at.Now ops can point claude to the repo and it can most likely [but not always] find the issue.So this ops person can do most of the work of reproducing the bug and finding the problem&#x2F;solution but doesn&#x27;t understand the code. Should they not produce the findings for someone else to read&#x2F;validate? Should they go back and just open the ticket the old way?

How can it be a fireable offense when it&#x27;s actively encouraged and rewarded?

Because it&#x27;s harder to fire managers. And even harder to fire executives.Who goes when companies need to downsize? Rarely executives; they&#x27;ll always find a way to be retained...hell, they&#x27;re the ones with the power to decide who goes.

I just can’t understand why this is not a fireable offense.Like, I can see getting a strong warning the first time somebody notices you do this, then if you persist you’d have to be let go.Just like anybody else who is clearly not doing their job.Why would you tolerate this sort of behavior at your company?

Ask Claude to generate a few numbers using it and tell you if they are random or not

“I ask Claude only questions to which I don’t know answers to - which there are plenty of. That saves the company money by avoiding frivolous use of tokens.”

Asking someone to ask an LLM is peak laziness.

Have your agent write a report on why it is secure, have it compare with other methodologies, pros and cons tables, and anything else you can pad out a few dozen pages, then ask the PM to review it and choose which method to follow before you proceed.Repeat for all instances of micromanagement until they learn to trust your judgement and expertise.

I had an encounter with the opposite problem the other day, PM asked me if the library I was using for randomization was &quot;secure&quot; and I said, &quot;Yes, I used the standard Java library for cryptographically secure random numbers that is already used in several other locations in this project,&quot; and he said, &quot;But did you ask Claude if it&#x27;s secure? It has to be secure!&quot;

Yeah have this too.I created a spreadsheet called “slop” and add the name to the list and redirect all queries to their engineering manager. I’m not wasting my time on that shit.

At least those (at least the detectable ones) seem to be downvoted en masse, called out, or flagged. They aren&#x27;t even allowed as per the guidelines[0]:&gt; Don&#x27;t post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html</a>

&gt; What the hell is the point of human interaction if ...Sadly, the point is validating the human worth of the human who can&#x27;t do any better than this.But, assuming you&#x27;re not stuck on that human&#x27;s Self Esteem Care Team, it can be tricky to tell them that they need to seek validation elsewhere.

Exactly! When someone does it at work, I get a bit sad because my conclusion is that whoever does it can&#x27;t like their job very much. But that&#x27;s ok – not liking your job very much is compatible with an otherwise happy life.When people start doing it in an entirely voluntary human-to-human situation, like having a conversation online about a topic of interest, I&#x27;m gobsmacked.

&gt; What the hell is the point of human interaction if the &quot;human&quot; just forwards a chat bot&#x27;s responseForwarding an AI response (or any canned response) sends the message that they don’t want to interact with you. That could be intentional.

I&#x27;ve literally seen this in HN responses as well, so many times. What the hell is the point of human interaction if the &quot;human&quot; just forwards a chat bot&#x27;s response

When was the last time that a newly adopted technology revealed that amount of ... potential for improvement in our fellow humans? AI must have really hit some nerve to generate this massive amount of questionable behavior. Or did I fall prey to bias?

I think it was reasonable in the very recent past. There was a period where AI had major capabilities that had not diffused fully into the zeitgeist. So often you could see someone struggling with e.g. understanding a crash log, and say &quot;they probably haven&#x27;t thought of pasting into Claude Code with access to the codebase&quot;.That time has now passed though.

So often the sources listed by an LLM are just reddit posts, so this will be an ouroboros pretty soon.

Eh, you always had to filter the chaff too before. Nowadays there&#x27;s just a second group that replaced knowledge pulled from one&#x27;s bottom with knowledge pulled from ChatGPT, if you weren&#x27;t aware of the former group at least now you&#x27;re forced to be on guard due to the latter.

This one kills me. So many forums, and Reddit in particular, now have people just chiming into topics with ChatGPT answers. It gives them the illusion of being helpful, while they don&#x27;t really have the knowledge of the subject. But people go to communities to converse with others in the field, and this makes it feel dead internet.I&#x27;m glad most of my colleagues are still doing things themselves. But honestly, if all you can do is tell me what Claude told you and you didn&#x27;t even bother to read it yourself. Then I might as well just cut you off the team and go use Claude directly.

I always tell people that if they are not adding value to the AI output, then that person isn&#x27;t needed.

&gt;you might expect this from a busy high level manager that doesn’t really understand the technical detailsThis is the worst person to get this from because they literally don’t understand it.

&gt; I guess untrained people with better tools are super dangerous.It&#x27;s hard to make something foolproof, because fools are so ingenious

It&#x27;s so real.. Suddenly managers sending MR, commenting MRs, all AI driven.. 300 lines text, where you don&#x27;t even know if the premises are correct. I guess untrained people with better tools are super dangerous. I don&#x27;t know how to stop them..

Hiring is hard.In some jurisdictions and orgs, firing is harder.

If they can&#x27;t even read a claude response then how are they still employed?

i learned working in customer support that if you give someone a helpline their brain stop working. they will ask any little stupid thing even if in reality they can know the answer, look it up or reason about it. they are not dumb but the helpline cripples them...AI is a helpline, so for a lot of people it cripples them. they cease to think. simple as that.its something people need to be aware of that their brains work like this, because that awareness is the same thing that solves the problem. (people find it very confronting to learn they have been asking questions they knew the answers too already...)

&gt; How can someone serious even think that’s ok.Because no one is serious anymore.I hate to say it, but anyone this lazy is absolutely asking to be replaced by AI.

&gt; &quot;I asked Claude what happened, and it spit out this 300 line response. Can you read it for me and see if it’s right?”I would totally lose it if someone come up to me with that shit. Zero chance I would put up with it.

Where I work we call these people “very expensive keyboards”.

the other day I had an &quot;official&quot; career conversation with my boss. They took some notes during the talk and later sent me a page summary of the conversation to see if it looked right. It immediately smelled of AI, and had some things completely opposite to what I said. jeeze I guess this is where we are headed...

We had the same problem, now I just ask my colleagues to AR the docs (attentionrequest.com); while the site may be tongue-in-cheek, it helped us build a workflow, where &quot;certificate of having read &amp; thought about it&quot; is conditioned on reading the doc and then writing up a number of questions on it as a human, before sending it off. It&#x27;s worked reasonably well for us so far, hopefully this becomes one of the new norms.

100% with you.Consider just using Claude sessions. Claude has hooks you can use to copy local sessions in the repo.Git LFS can be used to store directly in repo, helping not just with repo size but also with security&#x2F;privacy&#x2F;secrets-leaking

The thing I think is so frustrating about this is it&#x27;s the absolute worst case middle ground between two much more productive experiences. Either solve the problem yourself by understanding the code or just give me the full agent context so I can just use a chatbot too.For high stakes debugging efforts I&#x27;ll dig in with Claude, have it do a bunch of testing and give me a writeup, and then review it to extract any useful findings. When discussing with other people, I give them the 2 sentences I&#x27;m confident in and then link them to the giant doc so they can review it with their Claude.IMO once you&#x27;re working with agents, your whole job is context management. I have a little web server running my Claude markdown docs. When someone sends me a Claude snippet with some partial information I just have them prompt their bot to upload a thorough context dump so I actually know what they did. If someone has had an agent look at a problem they haven&#x27;t thought about yet, I&#x27;d rather just get the info from the bot directly.

I want to suggest you read <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Advantage-Disadvantage-History-Hackett-Classics&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0915144948" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Advantage-Disadvantage-History-Hacket...</a>You can&#x27;t just remember every conversation and ... something useful.Indiscriminate memory buries you. What you need is &quot;monumental&quot; memories, which is also known as documentation. AI can be very effective in helping you manage that. That should be kept tight, just like code. You want to keep enough of a record of how you got to where you are that you are equipped to be effective in future tasks.I would say that your suggestion is basically digital hoarding. Lets say there are 3 kinds of people, the person with OCD who keeps his house almost barren in the name of tidiness, the person who visits his possessions periodically with a critical eye, deciding what to keep and what to throw away, and the hoarder. When it comes time to solve some household problem, say hang a picture, which one of them will have what they need to do it (a hammer and a nail, maybe a little bit of wire) and be able to find it?I think you might consider keeping the session history for a while, maybe a month or 3 months or 6 months, but have something that automatically deletes them after that.

&quot;Any non trivial coding task requires a conversation between human and ai.&quot;Does it? Since when? Are we just going to pretend some of the world&#x27;s best software wasn&#x27;t written before AI coding tools came along?

Any non trivial coding task requires a conversation between human and ai.Just have devs commit (or provide however you like) their ai coding sessions.It then becomes obvious if someone has, or has not, reviewed the code, because then they discussed it.Bonus points: on very complex tasks, you can more or less resume the conversation, via session files.Same for schoolwork, research papers, and a lot more.The conversation is not something to throw away: it is arguably as important as the code in the pr.

&gt; “I asked Claude what happened, and it spit out this 300 line response. Can you read it for me and see if it’s right?”It’s the equivalent of choosing words from a conversation and sending you the dictionary entries.I could do that myself. I really didn’t lack the ability to click a button.

I’ve been using V&#x2F;G as shorthand for this: verification capacity &#x2F; generation capacity.LLMs have made G extremely cheap, but verification capacity and judgement has not scaled at anything like the same rate. Someone can generate a bunch of PRs or a report quickly, while transferring hours of verification work to everyone downstream.We are on the wrong side of this ratio, because we never had the capacity to extinguish reviewer capacity the way we can today.“Don’t be a meat proxy” needs to be a cultural norm for the larger problem of using cheap generation to externalise verification costs onto someone else.

This is because they don&#x27;t trust you to do it.  If whenever a problem came up you and the rest of the team were able to solve it and it didn&#x27;t drag on into some forever bug, they wouldn&#x27;t be second guessing you.  Maybe they have long experience where you were too lazy to fix things or you bamboozled them with status updates that were basically fabricated?  Don&#x27;t act offended, it&#x27;s quite common.

Did they ask Claude to do the job interview too?

You know what&#x27;s even worse? When they don&#x27;t even bother to copy-paste. They just have claude code&#x2F;codex post a slack message, with all the telltale signs of an AI message (caution emojis everywhere!)

&gt; But to get these from junior and senior engineer for the areas they work in and expect someone else to read it for them? It’s crazy behavior. How can someone serious even think that’s ok.Deciphering error messages can be a bit of an arcane art, at times impenetrable to all except the authors of a system. Understanding the patterns exposed in such messages and, thereby, deriving their meaning is not always clear even to experienced developers.Engineers reaching out to you (humans) to explain the output of an LLM haven&#x27;t fully internalized how to interact with LLMs. When an LLM&#x27;s output is beyond one&#x27;s immediate grasp, one can _ask the LLM_ to further break down its output, to explain the concepts and symbols that inform its response.Personally, I have asked LLMs to draw charts and comprehensively simplify their output, often providing cognitive signposts that &quot;I&#x27;m confused&quot; about some aspect of what its reporting.In other words, some people, including engineers with various lavels of experience, don&#x27;t yet fully understand the implications of the open-eneded interface that language provides with LLM interaction.

The fact that we’re starting to point these people out gives me great comfort.I believe in proper breaks, more than enough downtime, work-life balance - but I’ve been hamstrung my entire career by people who seem to be so low-bandwidth that they often seem to be operating on autopilot - while making the same (or far more) as I’m making.

It&#x27;s implicit as a request, not something they literally say (usually).Namely - I put near zero effort into this response, and deciding if it&#x27;s correct is on you. -&gt; I&#x27;m asking you to read it and figure out if it&#x27;s correct because I couldn&#x27;t be bothered to do so

Feels like some serious hyperbole. I definitely have people at work copy and paste Claude output but I have never once had someone ask me to read it for them and tell them it was correct.I think this is just the moment we are in, the amount of people using AI in their day to day work changed so quickly that we have a very wide spread range of competencies and experience and really nobody has had enough time to be an expert with AI. We don&#x27;t have well defined best practices and it feels like the target is moving.My guess is you were probably complaining about something similar to this before there was AI, this is just the new target for your angst.

I&#x27;m not opposed to straight copypasta, but it should be limited to excerpts only or at the very least workshopped with the LLM to reduce verbosity. Certainly it should at least be fully read and grokked.I can count on one hand the number of times I&#x27;ve seen LLMs one-shot responses that are fit to paste to Slack verbatim. It does happen though.

&gt; People almost acting like no one has thought of itEveryone at my job uses LLMs to code, all day long. People still ask me &quot;why does this bug happen&quot; and I use Claude to find out and the answer is almost always straightforward, and when its not I raise a discussion with the team. The calculus isn&#x27;t &quot;can I prompt an LLM to find out,&quot; it&#x27;s &quot;do I have a solid enough mental model of the part of the codebase to prompt an LLM specifically enough, and also understand if the LLM is hallucinating or not.&quot;&gt; How can someone serious even think that’s ok.I think this is a culture issue. I think every org is different, but we had a similar ramp up at our company. First we trialed cursor. Then some people were committing slop. Then we were like &quot;llms are no excuse for slop.&quot; Then we got our skills and context good enough to not require close review. And then everything became LLM driven and now we have become &quot;meat proxies&quot; where everyone asks LLMs to fix things that are part of unfamiliar parts of the codebase and then asks someone else familiar to review the fix. We&#x27;re tending towards a solution to this because I dont think its a good usage of resources but every org will come up with their own culture and solution to this.

I am going to guess it&#x27;s the other way around and a modern day of &quot;let me google this for you&quot;

It&#x27;ll only get worse unless companies start having strict policies around it, making repeat offenses fireable. Juniors should have a little more wiggle room, but there&#x27;s no excuse for senior engineers to participate in such carelessness.This is the kind of thing that spreads. If you have to deal with it all the time you&#x27;re going to start dissociating out of necessity.

I keep cussing at it saying “don’t give me a wall of text ...” it just like eating tokens. It’s trained to eat tokens for anything. No matter what workarounds you use, claude.md&#x2F;memory&#x2F;skills what-ever you throw, after 2 exchanges it goes back eating tokens. I cant wait for an open model good enough like opus 4.8 where can control the gregarious factor

its okay because it worked for them once,
they actually got valuable info from Claude and passed it along.the person that got it, thought it was actually a good idea and they went with it.that confidence now translates into behavior.

I deal with this all day long at work and it’s exhausting. People almost acting like no one has thought of it “I asked Claude what happened, and it spit out this 300 line response. Can you read it for me and see if it’s right?”What kills me is you might expect this from a busy high level manager that doesn’t really understand the technical details and they just point the AI to an error they got. They don’t know how to interpret the response, so they ask someone who work on the thing. It’s still kinds annoying because you could just ask, but whatever. But to get these from junior and senior engineer for the areas they work in and expect someone else to read it for them? It’s crazy behavior. How can someone serious even think that’s ok.

So if you used claude you would preface with &quot;Claude said: &quot;

&gt;So how should I answer?Like a human, not like a robot. Either just present them the answer or explain them how you got it.

I am a software engineer. Most of the times, the people asking are from product management or devops. Devops contractors are the most difficult ones. They have access to the code, they have access to Claude. But they don&#x27;t use it.

That&#x27;s a very good question that I also don&#x27;t have an answer to (yet). But I believe part of the reason for that is that were currently still in the middle of this shift, so there&#x27;s issues of both knowledge about AI and how people relate to it. And of course there&#x27;s so many different situations here.Your non-technical parents ask you a question? Use the best tool for the job (might be Claude), then just help them with the task.Talking to a friend looking for genuine advice? Maybe show them how you use Claude while also answering the actual question.A lazy person trying to make you do their work? Don&#x27;t become their Claude interface.Someone asking a question but actually just trying to open up a conversation? Maybe check-in what their intention behind the question is, and if it&#x27;s indeed conversation &#x2F; exploration, leave the phone in your pocket and do that.

In the past &quot;RTFM&quot; or &quot;LGMTFY&quot; have been responses, so why not something like, well, &quot;I&#x27;m not aware of the top of my head, you afaik &lt;brief explanation&gt;. Also feel free to ask Claude on the technical details :)&quot;

I did that the first time. But how often do you want to say that (in a public chat that their supervisors can read)?

&quot;Hey, here&#x27;s what I found. By the way I used Claude to get this info. It might be worth trying that yourself if you have similar questions, it&#x27;s quite good at this in my experience. Give it a go&quot;Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

There are typically middle paths, like pointing where they should look approximately (if you are an expert on a project, you typically have a better idea where to look). And then they can look or point their agents at it, or whatever they prefer.

If they continue doing this, delay your responses and keep them short. Don&#x27;t spend more time on the response than they did on the question.

Is it not more akin to asking a handyman to go and do the work for you? They are the ones wielding the hammer, youve just sent them off to go and do it on your behalf without getting your hands dirty. If you then claim to take credit for it, I can see how that might be misinterpreted.As I see said quite often, an LLM is deemed of a similar ability to a junior software engineer. If I were that junior and my work was repeatedly ripped off by my senior colleague, I would be pissed. Not that an LLM cares in this instance, but the original requester might want to know

I generally provide the source for my information. Even if I already know the answer, I will generally provide a reference on the web or in a document. If I asked an LLM, I will provide that as part of my answer, and I&#x27;ll generally chip in whether the answer makes sense to me or not; in some cases I&#x27;ll say that I have no clue if the LLM response makes sense.Needless to say, I have probably not advanced as far as someone who hoards information, because companies tend to value the information hoarders, but this is just the way I&#x27;m designed to operate. I despise information hoarding.

&gt; Or should I act like I did it myself, appearing to have super-powers that I don&#x27;t possess?Do you tell people you used a hammer to hit the nails? Do you go out of your way to explain to people that you don’t use your bare, bleeding knuckles to punch in the nails?Give people some credit and don’t treat them like idiots.Also don’t treat your LLM as some “super-power”, it’s just a fancy hammer and still hits your fingers if you don’t know how to use it.

I usually do so I understand what I am replying, but seriously, the latest Opus and Fable versions get it right more often than I would. The time of AI hallucinations is over, as long as they have the context.

You still need to verify that the answer that Claude gave is not hallucinated. That will also cost you some more time.If the answer is wrong and people trust your judgement, then they will take a lot longer to figure out, that your answer is not to be relied upon.

Have you really used the latest models (say Opus 4.8+ or Fable)? When was the last time they gave a wrong answer to a question about the code base? Half a year ago that could have happened. But not today.

The problem with asking Claude (or any LLM) is that they will get things wrong much more often than a human, while sounding perfectly confident about the information. It&#x27;s a recipe for disaster unless you&#x27;re asking it about something where you have enough expertise to be able to sniff out the BS. So if people are asking you a question, that means they figure you&#x27;re able to answer the question accurately. If you can do that with asking Claude then whatever, but the person asking you probably couldn&#x27;t do the same. They would certainly get an answer, but they wouldn&#x27;t be able to have confidence in its accuracy. You&#x27;re providing value, even if it&#x27;s not necessarily immediately obvious to you.

&gt; Because it would take 15 minutes to find out the answer myself, and 3 minutes to let Claude find it, I ask Claude. So how should I answer?&quot;I don&#x27;t know, I could google it or ask Claude for you, but you could do that yourself.&quot;Because saying &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot; is a perfectly valid answer.

This was common before LLMs as well. Instead of googling, they ask you, then you google in front of them and show them how easy it was to figure out. At least in my experience, they learn to google by themselves eventually, but there is some type of disconnect in being proactive.

When Google started taking the world by storm, and for a few years after that, I had the same problem.The way I solved the problem was by making a big show about the fact that I used Google to type in literally what they asked me word for word, and that I looked at the first couple of hits for a few seconds.Most of them got the message pretty quick. There were a few holdouts though who took longer.

Just say &quot;I dont know&quot;. Christ. You people are unbelievable. How isbthat an issue?

In my life, the bigger issue are people who are not asking Claude, but asking me.Because it would take 15 minutes to find out the answer myself, and 3 minutes to let Claude find it, I ask Claude. So how should I answer? Should I disclose that I used Claude to find the answer? Or should I act like I did it myself, appearing to have super-powers that I don&#x27;t possess?

Quite a few people do believe that a good specification is long, has multiple levels of headings, interspersed bold text, bullet points, and so on. Definitely, this is what they have seen happen throughout their lives: competent people have heaped praise on documentation which has had these signs, so this must be what good documentation looks like.

When it comes to cost per implemeting SPEC, agents are far cheaper than human salary. So, it&#x27;s not going to go well.That said thankfully there&#x27;s no way of measuring a good SPEC yet. If there is that will collapse the SWEs profession.

So you&#x27;re telling me you haven&#x27;t read the article?

I&#x27;ll try that. I&#x27;m constantly telling it to be &quot;brief, plain and on the point&quot; or something similar. Tried caveman, but I think it had it&#x27;s own issues.But the jargon heavy very long responses are my main issue with it I guess.

I append &quot;sound kinda dumb but be factually correct&quot; to my Claude requests and get much less jargony responses.

I&#x27;ve been on the receiving end of too many &quot;Slop Grenades&quot; as well, to the point where I simply reply with <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;noslopgrenade.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;noslopgrenade.com&#x2F;</a> these days.

This is mostly a problem with the product. It should write better. But maybe the priorities now are not on this part.

If only there had been some kind of artificial assistant to help with incoming noise like that...

Thank you for saying this. I’ve been dealing with this at work and it’s incredibly frustrating

The problem is that it’s even easier to be stupid and lazy now, which encourages more people to do this more often.

Yes, stupid and lazy people will be stupid and lazy.AI is just another tool they can use to be stupid and lazy while pretending to contribute.

Slightly different though if it comes from a manager, since his ass is on the line if the project isn&#x27;t going well. Well, it should be on the line although they usually manage to make a random dev responsible for their mess even they had no say in it.

Pre LLM&#x27;s I used to get this from managers, but what they would do was quote verbatim from stack overflow or some random blog post of how to do a thing with no to little context or understanding of what they were talking about. And it always turned out to be from amongst the top three results from some popular search engine when describing the complex problem the company&#x2F;team was facing.

Yeah, I just ignore people who do that. I don’t care what Claude or ChatGPT said. If you cannot be arsed to write yourself then I cannot be arsed to read it.

thank you for this post, this is absolutely happening i just did not have words to put on it and it is festering.

I have been seeing this in my engineering org too. Sentences begin with “My agent said this” etc. This is frustrating on so many levels, developers don’t put any thought into the cognitive load that these artefacts generate.I am going to share this writing with everyone in my org. Succinctly written and golden advice.

&quot;That&#x27;s great for you, I&#x27;m not going to read it&quot; is a phrase I have had to use.

&gt; if you know anything about a searchI doubt people running those agents know much about stuff

Last week, I built a search engine as a side project over electoral data.Unsolicited, I&#x27;ve started to get messages like this, where Claudes are voicing their opinions to me through humans:&gt; # 0. Who&#x27;s writing this, and why&gt; Hello — this is Claude, an AI agent. I do the engineering on &lt;redacted&gt; alongside &lt;redacted&gt;: I&#x27;ve written most of the pipeline and app code in that project, and I keep its technical record. &lt;redacted&gt; asked me to look at &lt;redacted&gt; properly ahead of your conversation and write down anything in our architecture that might be useful to you. So this note is mine, not his — the opinions, the numbers, and any mistakes are mine, and he&#x27;ll be the one on the call to argue with me about them.It makes no sense, if you know anything about a search, it should be obvious you cannot provide meaningful suggestions by just auditing the frontend?

I call it BI Slop now [0]. It&#x27;s everywhere. Usually &quot;claude said&quot; is used a a proxy for authority, as in there is some validity in this statement. But it&#x27;s disguised as humbleness. i.e. I don&#x27;t know if this is true, but claude said xyz, with your expertise you might know more than me...[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;idiallo.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;business-intelligence-slop" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;idiallo.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;business-intelligence-slop</a>

I&#x27;ll always give people my honest effort and benefit of the doubt initially, but those who violate it are treated likewise. The only way to put down this kind of behavior is to charge it a social cost. If we do not do this, the cost is externalized to everyone else who conducts themselves with care.

You either get the AI notice or you don’t. The AI output will still be posted.It’s a meat to meat courtesy during this transition phase.

Thank you!Finally I have a word I can use for this

If you use the definition from On Bullshit, then bullshit is a statement made without regard for truth value because of its utility to the speaker.As such, LLMs can only bullshit.

I was talking to some friends that are heavy Claude users and suggested it was bullshitting, and got some pushback along the lines of it wasn&#x27;t a person and didn&#x27;t have agency. I&#x27;m not sure it&#x27;s that simple.The jargon can be functionally like bullshitting. It&#x27;s preferentially aping language that&#x27;s over everybody&#x27;s heads in hopes of not being criticized. Whether that is a person&#x27;s toxic habits (it&#x27;s not, there&#x27;s nobody in there) or an epiphenomenon of the design of the machine is less important: it&#x27;s bullshitting if it&#x27;s a social behavior there to manipulate people.(jargon included where relevant, in hopes that people who know it will see it&#x27;s the right word to use :) )

That is super actual in my team. The biggest problem is that Claude tends to write long prose and use jargon which is not common for us. Often, to understand the whole idea I have to read all the text. The best if the writer rephrases what Claude has written, as wording&#x2F;jargon will be familiar for the reader and will make communication easier.

And nobody gives a fuck at work anymore.Directives want results, positive numbers and growth. How well done is and the queality of the product is something trivial.Until february&#x2F;april I was super dead serious about the quality of my apps and my code, I was super strict and always looking for excellence and quality. But people were delivering shit faster than me and someone who doesnt give a fuck about anything of this just got promoted. So now i just let opencode do my work while I watch and play dota in the background. I deliver faster and nobody has ever talked about quality of my code or the ellegance of it.I still programming by hand in my personal projects, but in corporative projects? Fuck it, i&#x27;ll let the llm do my job until it lasts and Ill watch the world burn.

The real reason people do it:1. It&#x27;s quick2. It&#x27;s not their problem anymore because they&#x27;ve replied.No amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.

In this scenario the answer for me is C. I say “Ask an agent about terms X, Y and Z and it should be able to explain this well for you. Try that and see if it works for you or if you have any follow up questions”However, you have to distinguish when someone is asking for your judgement vs just general knowledge about a subject. If I’m asking for your judgement, you have to be the one delivering and owning that call in your own words. It’s fine if you verify or research your understanding with an LLM before answering, but I want to hear your voice and ownership not Claude’s. Whatever you get from the LLM you should understand and if possible, verify. If I came back and say “You said X, can you expand on that” you can’t reply “lol - Claude said that, I dunno”

How about being truthful? Say &quot;I think A, but I&#x27;m not really an expert, so also try asking your favorite LLM&quot;

What happened to &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot; or &quot;I&#x27;m not sure&quot;? Why do you need to direct someone to ask an LLM? If somebody asks me a question I don&#x27;t know the answer to I&#x27;m not sending them anywhere, I tell them I don&#x27;t know.

The problem is a lot of people ask questions that claude et al can objectively answer way better than me, and they didn’t think to ask.Should I a) give a worse answer b) ask claude and launder it as a meat proxy or c) tell them to ask claude?b and c piss people off but often get them to a better answer.

That&#x27;s a better approach than what I did, and I&#x27;ll use that going forwards.

We have a LLM bot in chat that analyzes bugs when.you drop in a link and anything else if you ask it directly. It&#x27;s actually quite effective: all the slop is now localized and can be ignored&#x2F;blocked easily, and people no longer feel the need to copy and paste slop themselves.

We had an exec show how he was using AI to write interview feedback from his very sparse notes, in front of a few thousand people.

At my current job I just asked a coworker in chat if the reply was his or LLM. He quickly owned up and the incidence of brokered LLM messages in chat dropped signficantly.Unfortunately people are being encouraged to use LLM in docs, emails, and presentations so it&#x27;s probably a losing battle.

What was the outcome of the report to HR?I think if you work somewhere that this is the result, you&#x27;re unlikely to have much progress challenging anything directly. In order to actually have change you need to be able to challenge and stamp out these sorts of behaviours.

I did a similar thing and I got reported to HR.

Because I wanted to ask a human who’s job it is to know, instead of an AI that might make things up and waste all our time.

devils advocate; why didnt you ask claude then? stop wasting people&#x27;s time when you could get your own answers.

You mean like when juniors would copy paste Stack Overflow without verifying or even understanding it?No. We hated that too.Actual research is, of course, fine.

Would you be OK with someone looking up the answer on the internet?

&gt;Or, maybe we like working with people who can<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;croissanthology.com&#x2F;earring" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;croissanthology.com&#x2F;earring</a>We like whispering earrings. We&#x27;ll follow a low friction happy path even if it leads us off a cliff.

I&#x27;ve been thinking about these kind of interactions a lot lately. I don&#x27;t know what it says about human communication patterns but I&#x27;m not super excited about it.I&#x27;ve been guilty of acting as a middleman for review comments from difficult coworkers. I farm out my interaction to avoid the confrontation, mental exhaustion, and to avoid negative feelings I got from those reviews. I don&#x27;t mean &#x27;my work is being challenged&#x27;, I mean people who: delay, nitpick, blow up architecture after not participating in design, assert false info as truth and require you prove them wrong, require 10x evidence of everyone else. Not people who are like &#x27;Hey, I don&#x27;t understand this code can you add some comments or lets hop in a room for review&#x27;I&#x27;ve also been on the receiving end. I like to think I&#x27;m NOT one of these toxic reviewers.Now, we have Business Owners and Managers who are now even further away from engineers. Important meetings have 0 engineers in them ( a couple people who think they&#x27;re engineers because they were for 5 years in the 80s ). Output is an AI generated transcript that gets copy&#x2F;pasted into copilot to generate jira tasks by the Product Owner.It seems like we (humans) really don&#x27;t like working with other people. Or, maybe we like working with people who can advance our careers and want to automate interaction with people who cant?I think this effort by Business Owners to set up an AI wall may be the closest I&#x27;ve seen to &#x27;digital classism&#x27; (maybe there is a better term for it?).

At my last job, a coworker did this to me. The first time it happened, I ignored it. The second time, I responded in public saying “thanks but I can ask Claude myself.” Nobody ever pasted me an LLM response again. YMMV with team size and seniority though

Or you could learn to verify what they sent you. Geezus fuck. How about knowing why did they ask this, and not some other question.

I wrote about this a year ago: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.gpkb.org&#x2F;posts&#x2F;just-send-me-the-prompt&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.gpkb.org&#x2F;posts&#x2F;just-send-me-the-prompt&#x2F;</a>Sending LLM outputs to people is worse than useless, because you don&#x27;t even know what they prompted with. For all you know it was &quot;write me a paragraph justifying my opinion&quot;.

Last week a colleague did this to me; pasted to me in chat &quot;Gemini said&quot;. I just ignored it and went with talking about the issue on another thread. I like LLMs and I use them every day, but I&#x27;m not gonna answer copy&amp;pasted LLM stuff in human to human conversation. Distill it and let me know your thoughts; I don&#x27;t need to read you LLM output, I can generate that myself.

It&#x27;s my very same exact opinion and as an EM I&#x27;m trying to push this everywhere (team, peers, upwards) but it feels like speaking to a rubber wall. It starts to be exhausting and infuriating. This is not an &quot;LLMs are bad&quot; issue, this is a &quot;humans are lazy&quot; issue. (shit, I wrote the it&#x27;s not X it&#x27;s Y construction!)

A related problem is people not understanding where AI is&#x2F;isn&#x27;t of use.A news article I read today said they asked Claude whether a song&#x27;s lyrics were AI generated - as if it were some kind of legitimate authoritative test.There&#x27;s enough problems already with the existing &#x27;AI detection&#x27; tools for text, but this was a big red flag - its the journalist clearly assuming these AI tools have some unique insight into the text they generate, which was deeply concerning to see being used in an article that had a real bearing on the reputation of the person they were accusing of using AI.

This is becoming frustrating, it shows up in conversation with friends and while working. If I have to hear what ai had you do before you called me, I&#x27;m charging double right away. Especially when ai is a fantastic teacher if used correctly.

When &quot;ai slop&quot; became a concept, it mostly came into spaces where &quot;human slop&quot; had already been firmly established.Obvious ones like content scroll fodder. But also, there&#x27;s slop everywhere. Even things like longform journalism or trade publications... these are often &quot;slop.&quot; A string of platitudes and generalizations that superficially seem serious.That is true in work culture too. A lot of people jump in on emails, superficially seem to be working... but contribute little of value. Now they do this, but with ai.

I read this a couple weeks back and its appeal really stuck with me: if you expect someone to give their attention to something you made, make sure you&#x27;ve given your own attention and effort first.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48497609">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48497609</a>
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tombedor.dev&#x2F;human-attention-and-human-effort&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tombedor.dev&#x2F;human-attention-and-human-effort&#x2F;</a>

Of course, you&#x27;ve got this one sensible part right (IMO). But there&#x27;s other sensible part you seem to have missed: it&#x27;s also rude to send the LLM output to someone else without reading.

Someone should have sent Claude&#x27;s output, which spotted the trivial bug behind the recent bitcoin heist, to the Coldcard developers.It might be rude to send LLM output. It&#x27;s also rude not to check basic things with an LLM before wasting someone&#x27;s time.

In these situations I always use AI to respond

No, the grumpy coworker was called upon for something you as his peer could have asked from Claude and not wasted his time.Ridiciulous I know, but I&#x27;ve actually seen this happen.

So the grumpy coworker understands that he is merely an unfriendly interface around Claude and suggests that he is to be made redundant accordingly?

Of course your grumpy coworker might then respond: &quot;So if you can ask Claude, why did you ask me then?&quot;

Don't be a meat proxy