I'm not sure when I would rather rebuke someone for sending me AI-generated output than either just ignoring it, or sending a polite minimal response to the same effect
I've been seeing AI slop being used as ad-hominem. If I'm writing a couple paragraphs, I'll often run it through a model and ask it to make minimal edits for spelling and grammar. It makes it more readable and saves me time editing. If someone doesn't like my thoughts and they see an em dash, they can call it AI slop instead of responding, which is really annoying because the model otherwise does a good job of editing. In some cases I've been accused of AI slop for original unedited content.
> At my first job out of grad school, I tried to convince my manager that GPT-3 could be used to figure out whether or not a building had air-conditioning vents.
I cannot tell whether that's a joke, but I'm very interested if it's serious
> You should also know that I learned to read early and skipped first grade. Consequently, I was the perennial runt of the classroom and spent all my time reading as a child. I’ve gotten perfect scores on every reading test I’ve ever taken, including the SAT and GRE.
This is actually useful to know. Many people grew up in a time or place where they didn't receive the same kind of education. They may have weak reading and writing skills. Many of these folks might feel self conscious about their writing. A writing assistant is one way they can feel more confident, and I don't think that's a bad thing, even if I can usually tell.
One solution is to always hand-write like an AI right down to the em-dashes. Then it will be your writing style and hard to distinguish from AI output. Personally I find it hard to maintain a business-cheery persona or use verbose phrasing or office filler words.
[Just before I added this comment I realized it was more or less a direct message to the author, whom I noticed was replying here] As someone born very near the start of the Unix epoch, this isn't cringe at all - though I guess it is a bit Quixotic. I think in every tectonic shift of society there will be those who clutch onto the virtues of craftsmanship over "the plant" that can churn out... well, "slop"to those who appreciate craftsmanship. [my mind spun into several historical examples but 'nuff said.]
The two things that really resonated with me were:
> LLMs are very good at producing output, but they are not a substitute for you.
and
> You are a rich soup of learnings and experiences, and you’ve been simmering for decades. Please let me try some of it.
Your piece reminds me of an old song by Supertramp called "Hide in your Shell"[0]. The speaker tries to figure out how he can lead the subject out of their futile refuge and the punch lines are "I wanna know you" "Please let me near you".
Fun fact, I spent about 20 minutes composing this comment. Still "I lacked the time to make it shorter." I too was cursed with top 2% language skills and composing (and re-formulating) language is such a part of my flesh-and-blood identity that I could not conceive of a life worth living without it. When I do prompt LLMs for software solutions, I spend at least 15-25 minutes crafting context MD files and/or prompts. But then again, I'm not asking them to churn out yet another 1-shot modern web stack app.
I agree the world is richer because of folks like us. Carry on, wayward son. There'll be peace when you are done.
[0] https://www.letras.com/supertramp/84400/ I chose this site because it had the fewest pop-ups (still has a lot). Obviously, just prompting the title and the group returns the lyrics instantly from any mainstream LLM.
Ironically, that text itself reads a lot like slop.
At the same time, thanks to anti-AI-snobs like this distinguished gentleman, I have started spending significant amounts of time to deliberately not sound like an LLM (foreign-language speaker, analytical writer, typographical nerd who used em-dashs unironically), which makes me do double the work (and ironically makes the workflow of 'think yourself' -> 'rewrite to sound more human' more expensive than 'let the LLM do the thinking' -> 'rewrite to sound more human' in a business setting).
And yet - on the other hand - this absurdity has given rise to a strange, decadent joy: I've begun to write in florid, fanciful style simply to lampoon the process itself. A mockery wrapped in velvet. A jest dressed in brocade. If one must dance for the algorithmic (or anti-algorithmic) court, why not do so with powdered wig and fan in hand?
I think this is a great post. It will ruffle some feathers and people will feel attacked, but I think the core idea is exactly right: if we are communicating and the goal is the exchange of information, use your incredible language faculty to communicate with me. To do otherwise is a disrespect to me and it indicates that you value the act of showing me your brilliant idea (in your estimation) more than you value taking the effort to actually communicate the idea to me. You are essentially an "ideas guy". I know that an LLM is a yes-man, and that a yes-man and an "ideas guy" is a combination that produces confident mistakes. If you can't be bothered to communicate your idea, or the essence of your idea, in your own words, please keep it to yourself until you've put in that effort.
This piece sounds like a second order LLM, the first-order one generates text and the second-order one filters and optimizes it. But, in fact, this work is done by a human being.
The human reviewer asks and wants you to proof-read your output before submission. It claims being able to detect any AI slop. I wonder whether this is true, and if so, for how long. Maybe it will be replaced by a GAN LLM, and then the loop will be closed.
Personally this feels very judgemental. I’d be happy to get an AI aided response by someone trying to improve getting their point across like many of us English language learners. LLM are a godsend for people that aren’t masters of the language in all kinds of ways.
17 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 36.3 ms ] thread> I’ve gotten perfect scores on every reading test I’ve ever taken, including the SAT and GRE.
In all honesty though, it is certainly relatable, and more people should be pissed at the state of our industry.
I cannot tell whether that's a joke, but I'm very interested if it's serious
This is actually useful to know. Many people grew up in a time or place where they didn't receive the same kind of education. They may have weak reading and writing skills. Many of these folks might feel self conscious about their writing. A writing assistant is one way they can feel more confident, and I don't think that's a bad thing, even if I can usually tell.
The two things that really resonated with me were:
> LLMs are very good at producing output, but they are not a substitute for you.
and
> You are a rich soup of learnings and experiences, and you’ve been simmering for decades. Please let me try some of it.
Your piece reminds me of an old song by Supertramp called "Hide in your Shell"[0]. The speaker tries to figure out how he can lead the subject out of their futile refuge and the punch lines are "I wanna know you" "Please let me near you".
Fun fact, I spent about 20 minutes composing this comment. Still "I lacked the time to make it shorter." I too was cursed with top 2% language skills and composing (and re-formulating) language is such a part of my flesh-and-blood identity that I could not conceive of a life worth living without it. When I do prompt LLMs for software solutions, I spend at least 15-25 minutes crafting context MD files and/or prompts. But then again, I'm not asking them to churn out yet another 1-shot modern web stack app.
I agree the world is richer because of folks like us. Carry on, wayward son. There'll be peace when you are done.
[0] https://www.letras.com/supertramp/84400/ I chose this site because it had the fewest pop-ups (still has a lot). Obviously, just prompting the title and the group returns the lyrics instantly from any mainstream LLM.
At the same time, thanks to anti-AI-snobs like this distinguished gentleman, I have started spending significant amounts of time to deliberately not sound like an LLM (foreign-language speaker, analytical writer, typographical nerd who used em-dashs unironically), which makes me do double the work (and ironically makes the workflow of 'think yourself' -> 'rewrite to sound more human' more expensive than 'let the LLM do the thinking' -> 'rewrite to sound more human' in a business setting).
And yet - on the other hand - this absurdity has given rise to a strange, decadent joy: I've begun to write in florid, fanciful style simply to lampoon the process itself. A mockery wrapped in velvet. A jest dressed in brocade. If one must dance for the algorithmic (or anti-algorithmic) court, why not do so with powdered wig and fan in hand?
The human reviewer asks and wants you to proof-read your output before submission. It claims being able to detect any AI slop. I wonder whether this is true, and if so, for how long. Maybe it will be replaced by a GAN LLM, and then the loop will be closed.