Agreed and it’s more than that. Comprehension, understanding, and validation. It also erodes trust in the person pasting the information.

You asked a human for their advice- based on their judgment. If they don’t take the time to validate the answer provided by ai, they literally have no judgment. A transparent proxy has zero value.

I want to use this as internal AI guidelines, I am so tired of people in my workplace simply copying and pasting whatever garbage AI gives them and expecting everyone to just go along with it and try to decipher what crap they were provided.

This reminds me how I've had to tell people to try to type better and nt us wird abbrvs, even if it means they can type it faster. Because if you want 100 people to read it, then every second you waste for the reader is worth you fixing up your message for over a minute.

It's very likely that proper punctuation and capital letters help the reader, then it doesn't matter than not using them is faster to type.

I'm sure we've all gotten that big stream of consciousness email that's a 15 line blob of lower case text, with no punctuation or line breaks.

I don't mean every ephemeral message needs to be perfect, of course. Just, you know, readable.

But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is...

As such, isn't the question really about

1) whether it was communicated clearly/effectively 2) whether it should have been communicated to others at all (rather than something that you just dealt with yourself)

As for the writer being paid to use their expertise, learn more things etc: absolutely. But they could spend whatever time is required to think about the issue and then still have Ai write it at their direction. And, regardless of who wrote it, it could still be poor, irrelevant or misleading.

I'm not defending AI over-usage, but you folks evidently haven't thought about any of this nearly sufficiently enough... and the policy doesn't seem to be addressing what it ought to be: whether everyone is actually thinking, learning, discerning, deciding etc...

---

Ps I passed your comments to chatgpt and asked what it thought about it all, and it missed all of this. But then agreed once I brought it all up. Then it did a poor job of writing it's own response. I couldn't be bothered to guide it towards something more appropriate. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a86cc31-f058-83e8-8abd-3921b518ec...

---

Pps the fact that this comment and some of my subsequent ones have gotten downvotes, while no one has really provided any substantive/valid counter argument is quite disappointing, but also revealing.

It makes me think of the initial staunchly anti-ai for coding vs vibe coding dichotomy. Of course, neither was correct and it is now more common for people to appreciate AI as a tool that can be consciously and effectively used to help with coding. The fact that there's still plenty of thoughtless vibe coders doesn't make that untrue.

Likewise, vibe writing - not understanding or caring what you are saying and, worse, feigning that you do - is the real problem here. But that doesn't mean AI can't be a useful writing assistant, be it for producing first drafts for your review, or reviewing/editing your own first draft (and even subsequent ones).

And just as how people who can't code can't get Ai to reliably produce good, effective code, someone who can't write can't get Ai to produce good, effective writing.

To be able to write well is to be able to think well. Most people are not particularly capable of that, and obviously try to hide that fact. So, the non-AI writing policy that I was objecting to should instead be used to weed out the people who can't or won't think and write with clarity, integrity etc, just as their code review process should do for people who submit slop code.