[andy99]

Because AI can generate meritless works far faster than anyone can judge their merits. Asking someone to read your AI thing is basically asking someone to do the work for you. If you respect your colleagues time, you should be sharing your best version of inputs, not raw material. Not only that, you should have thought about and be able to defend it. Throwing some AI thing over the fence, you haven’t thought about it either, why would you expect your colleague to?

I’d add to that, long form AI output is really bad and basically unsuitable for anything.

Something like “I got GPT to make a few bullet points to structure the conversation” is probably acceptable in some cases if it’s short. The worst I can imagine is giving someone a “deep research” article to read as if that’s different from sending them to google.

[tediousgraffit1]

This is a trust issue. If someone I trust hands me a big pr, I focus on the important details. If someone i dont trust hands me a big pr, i just reject it and ask them to break the problem down further. I dont waste my time on this kind of thing, regardless of whether it was hand written or generated.

[axus]

Yes I made the assumption that the person who "put the plan together" did their own diligence of reviewing it before emailing, but maybe that is too charitable for an "AI plagiarist".

If someone sends me incomplete work I will judge them for that, the history of the work relationship matters and I didn't see it in the blog post.