[My_Name]

Most people are not self-sufficient entities. 10% are so unable to think that they are simply not able to be a net positive in any job, it takes more energy/time to micromanage them, even for simple tasks, than they put back into the business. 50% are incapable of real innovation.

Having met people in my life, an AI is better than most of them by any objective measure IMO.

[metalliqaz]

I agree with your assessment of people. I find that there is a lot of overlap with this old quote:

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

AI is the perfect product for that third group.

However I disagree in that I don't want to "talk to AI" either. Any time anyone sends me AI output, I simply reply that I can prompt GPT myself, if I want; just send me the inputs.

[sfink]

> Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Heh. It's a believable taxonomy, but it makes me suspect it could often have the corollary:

    Small minds create work; average minds do work; great minds talk about work.

[sodic]

> I simply reply that I can prompt GPT myself, if I want; just send me the inputs.

I didn't quite get this, you ask them to send you their prompt? Does this disincentivize them from sending AI responses in the future?

P.S. I always found it ironic that this quote does the very thing it classifies as small-minded - discusses people :)

[metalliqaz]

Here's an example that may help:

Their prompt: "write a polite and friendly email message to turn down an invitation because I already have plans at that time."

What I want them to send me: "thank you but I already have plans"

I don't want 2-paragraphs of milquetoast slop.

P.S. Ideas can involve people.

[tredre3]

> Any time anyone sends me AI output, I simply reply that I can prompt GPT myself, if I want; just send me the inputs.

In my experience their prompt is usually a verbatim copy-paste of the message I sent them, personal info and all. They simply put zero thought in it.