I'm about as pro-AI as you can be, but this is becoming a pet peeve of mine (and I'm not alone). That's why I love the AI;DR acronym as my new solution for ignoring the walls of slop.
  • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
    17·
    13 hours ago

    It sounds like they are OK with people using the tool, but he wants them to be mindful of how its being used.

    But if you’re my colleague and we’re in a Slack discussion and you post a wall of Claude output, then I’m afraid I received a different message than you intended.

    The same is true for people’s newsletters and social content. It’s your name on it; are you proud of the prose and weird AI-isms sprinkled throughout it? If so, great. But I can ask Claude directly if I wanted to.

    TLDR: Take responsibility for what you send to people, and don’t just ask a chatbot and blindly share the output

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      11 hours ago

      I really don‘t think the term AI;DR is as narrow as the author makes it to be because a simple Tl;Dr would suffice here. I don‘t think they actually get that AI is the whole problem and not really how you use it. Because if you curate slop to the point it doesn‘t resemble slop anymore then you could‘ve just written it yourself and probably save yourself some time.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        3 hours ago

        Part of the problem being that AI transforms people with low communication practice into wall-of-text producers and now the cost is on the readers to spend the time and energy filtering the AI-generated and reviewed and proofread stuff from the AI-generated and straight out the door stuff.

        The simplest solution for this is to just refuse to consume AI-generated text. It’s no real loss since if one wants the AI answer, one can just ask the AI themselves.