Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by estimator7292 59 days ago
No. Someone replaced well thought out documentation with AI fabrications and let GP take the fall for it.

That is malicious and inexcusable. It's not on GP, the fault lies with the idiot that ran gold documentation through the bullshit machine. Don't blame someone who was wronged, that makes you a malicious asshole.
2 comments
plumbees 59 days ago
Without context of who these people are, yes perhaps malicious but perhaps not consciously so. Merits a frank conversation of indicating that the action of AI reinterpretation introduced errors that poorly reflect on OP's reputation and THAT deserves rectification. My worldy observation is that people in all industries lack training. It's all been offloaded to automated systems. And nobody is there to ask questions or think logically. The hospital staff doesn't understand why I'm angry when they call me using an AI to give me information and the AI is asking for so much PII. (You called me! You already have that information! How do I know you aren't a scammer?) They are not the users of their garbage. They aren't trained to serve the customers, they are trained to serve their managers and that disconnect is occuring everywhere. Why do the grocery baggers put heavy objects with the bread. This was never a think in the 90s and 00s, and now baggers are just not being trained properly. Like, wtf...

But yes do be on the lookout for malicous people, document, log and look for patterns... don't write it off, document.

link
harvey9 59 days ago
I can still see a path where the manager was stupid but not malicious. The manager sent on a document which he was too lazy to check at least had the right endpoints but left the GP's contact details on. I could also imagine intentional harm to GP's reputation was the goal, with really clumsy execution.
link
antisthenes 59 days ago
Either way, that person should not be managing anything.

And if it was an honest mistake, they need to come out and apologize both to the IC and to the team that is using the documentation.

link
slava_ 59 days ago
I think it says a lot about micromanaging practice broadly. the person assigned for a task should be fully trusted and accountable. the manager could've criticize writing, recommend using LLM, but not interfere. what they've done shows lack of trust and responsibility first.
link
plumbees 59 days ago
Many mangers shouldn't be managing anything.
link