I like Oxide's version of this: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576#_llms_as_writers

The old social contract was that the writer had done more work than they were asking of the reader, but this is torn to shreds with LLM-generated text.

From my experience, they likely read 30% of it, convinced themselves that it was good enough and they thought about all of it, then shared it.

the code version of this is worse. an agent written PR looks exactly like one the author read carefully. only test I've found is to ask about one specific hunk, "why this and not X". you get a real answer =in ten seconds or you don't.

If someone sends me LLM output that they read and thought was fine, then that's OK with me.

They might be wrong and it's not fine, and I have a few people I know who have a much higher tolerance than I do for LLM outputs, and I'm aware of that when they send them to me and I often reject it.

But it's a totally different category than someone who only skimmed what they sent me.

If someone sends me something they read and digested and think it's good, but I don't think it is, then I'm not upset with them. If someone sends me something without that first step, then I am.

(Of course they could tell me they didn't read it, and that's fine too, I can choose to read it or not.)

There’s no reason to give these people the benefit of the doubt if they bother doing this.

Also the distinction between whether they read/wrote it is nil. Either is disrespectful.

To be honest I don't particularly feel the need to give the benefit of the doubt to people who dump 10 paragraphs of AI on me. If they want to give a thorough explanation of it to prove they really understand it, that's fine and I can update on the new evidence, but I'm OK with my default baseline assumption being they didn't read it so I don't need to either.

Strongly disagree with your sentiment.

> You don't know that they didn't read it!

If someone sends me AI slop to read then I am going to assume and behave as if they didn’t read it until proven otherwise.

It is the responsibility of the sender to proactively say “I read this and stand by it as at least mostly correct and reasonable”.

They are also free to say “AI slop have not yet proof read”. Then I have an informed choice.

Well, they can serve it that way. Based on my experience, everyone knows who the person always serving slop on the team is except the person serving slop.

I don't understand this bandwagoning either. I'm a shit writer, there I dont write, but if I could prompt some AI w/ my thoughts and it generated something that passed for writing and wasn't shit, then you wouldn't be injesting my awesome insights b/c you think AI made them and dismiss it out of some kinda of hurrdurr spite? Makes no sense, and lets not forget the English-as-second language crowd, I guess they have nothing to say either...

here's my comment ran thru ChatGPT, I hope you dont read it!

""" I don’t really understand the bandwagoning around this either. I’m a terrible writer, so I generally don’t write much. But if I could give an AI my thoughts and have it turn them into something clear, readable, and actually worth reading, why would that suddenly make the ideas themselves less valuable?

You’d be dismissing my thoughts—not because they’re bad, but because AI helped me express them. That just seems like reflexive “AI bad” nonsense.

And that’s before you even get to people who speak English as a second language. Are we really saying their ideas somehow count for less if they use AI to communicate them more clearly? That makes no sense to me. """

Perhaps:

Did you even read it through carefully once? If you couldn't bother to craft it, why should I read?