[mil22]

What a rude response to someone's attempt to help someone else out by expending their AI subscription tokens to answer their question. At least they started their comment by disclosing the text was generated by AI - they should be rewarded for that - punishing them for it by insulting them, telling their brain is a gizmo, and telling them not to have children, is aggressive, not going to have the desired outcome, and is only going to make it less likely they disclose that information in future. If you don't want to read an AI response, you can stop reading after the disclosure that it's an AI response. This is a somewhat obnoxious site, in my personal (and human) opinion. Send to others at your own risk I say (of being defriended, fired, or blocked).

[evilduck]

You entirely missed the point in the article: Everybody has access to AI. Nobody needs another person proxying it slowly and poorly in a worse medium than direct access.

Replying with AI responses is equal to saying that you're no longer relevant or valuable to the discussion. If you are annoyed by that and want to block people, fine, obviously nothing of value will be lost because they can just go to the source directly next time instead of you.

They're not doing anyone any favors by disclosing it either, and anyone replying with AI verbatim but undisclosed also isn't going to be savvy enough to hide the other tells and quirks. Assuming they're ever asked again for their "input".

[mil22]

On the contrary, I completely understand the point of the article. I disagree that there are no people who benefit from another person using AI on their behalf.

Everybody has free access to Google, Wikipedia, and Bing - that doesn't make sharing quotes from those sources worthy of abusive language telling people they shouldn't have children. Some people really do find value in another person opening up their ChatGPT subscription, crafting a suitable prompt, and passing on the response. There is absolutely some value in that, and many AI models are not even free.

Even just with Google, some people aren't very good at crafting search queries. Crafting a query or a prompt, deciding which model to use, vetting and sharing the response - these all add value beyond just "proxying it slowly and poorly".

Replying with an AI response can absolutely be relevant and valuable to a discussion, just as replying with a quote from Wikipedia or some other authority can be.

On the other hand, flaming people for trying to help you is, frankly, obnoxious, even if you don't appreciate the help or the manner in which it was offered.

[bigyabai]

> Replying with an AI response can absolutely be relevant and valuable to a discussion, just as replying with a quote from Wikipedia or some other authority can be.

But AI isn't an authority. If you're using AI as a search engine for other media, then I'd much rather you link to the source than make me wade through "Gemini suggested..." first. We should all know by now that "is this true, Grok?" is not a helpful barometer for anyone.

In your search engine analogy, I'd compare it to someone linking their search query instead of the desired link. Making me do extra work to engage with your point doesn't advance either of our understandings.

[evilduck]

Some people are on the bottom 5th percentile of the intelligence bell curve. Some people also enjoy having their balls being smashed in by high heels. Some people... blah blah blah. What a weasel statement. You are describing a straw man scenario that doesn't normally play out in the real world as such.

Replying with AI is the first obnoxious act. People reactive negatively to it should be expected.