[monooso]

The author makes it clear in the associated discussion that he doesn't immediately assume the suggestions are bad based on their source:

> I take the time to understand and consider each suggestion, not rejecting anything out of hand, and share them with my team members (of which there are 17).

The issue is the time it takes to explain _why_ these are bad ideas to non-technical (and skeptical) colleagues.

[ryanklee]

That sounds to me less of an issue with ChatGPT, and more with having colleagues that don't understand how to engage in reasonable discussion or evaluate information correctly.

[tdeck]

ChatGPT is absolutely a symptom here of the underlying problem. Frankly I think it's possible that OP is being too solicitous with these requests. Why does this other team think OP needs a constant input of new ideas? Why do they feel comfortable repeatedly second guessing OP in OP's are of expertise? It sounds like the planning process is totally out of whack. If they were clipping ideas out of a magazine and asking OP to do them it could be just as bad.

[chefandy]

And the question was how to get the their coworkers to stop giving copy/pasted ChatGPT technical answers from prompts written by nontechnical people, not how ChatGPT can do a better job.

[ryanklee]

And I didn't suggest how to do so. I implied that there is an issue with the quality of their coworkers, not ChatGPT.

[chefandy]

And since nobody implied it was a problem with ChatGPT itself, I pointed that out. Glad we cleared all of this up.

[ryanklee]

The saltines is basically inappropriate.

[chefandy]

Apologies of it read as salty rather than mildly tongue-in-cheek.

[notjoemama]

Good point. Maybe they can invite a discussion where the suggester walks through ChatGPT steps explaining how it is done? Hopefully people aren't so flippant they hammer their keyboard and hit send email. If that's the case, then maybe they need an ego check.

I think my default response would be (regardless of the ChatGPT instructions):

"I looked it over and it doesn't actually work. ChatGPT is good for many high level things but when the specifics get technical, is struggles and invents solutions that don't exist; like a bloom filter. Ask ChaGPT what a bloom filter is."

[krainboltgreene]

It is significantly cheaper to ban a poor tool than to teach critical thinking.

[ryanklee]

The problem is with the person, not the tool. Get rid of people who can't think critically, replace them with people who can.

[krainboltgreene]

Sure it's not the tool if you completely ignore 80% of the story. It's cheaper to ban a tool than "hire people who can critically think", as if I ever believed people could intentionally detect that.

[x86x87]

brandolini's law

[notjoemama]

intellectual entropy