[mrweasel]

> Let me paint a familiar picture. Someone leaves your organisation, or a licence gets removed as part of a cost-saving exercise.

That's a rather weird way of phrasing it. It almost suggested that you shouldn't audit your license needs.

Other than this was always the case, it's hard to see why data stored in a close account wouldn't get deleted.

[raverbashing]

Also the deletion will kick in after 12 months

> Day 1: licence removed or user deleted: The clock starts. The OneDrive account is now unlicensed and the retention countdown begins.

> Day 60: read-only mode: No more edits.

So yeah if you spend 12 months without realizing you might need the data of someone who left then I think that's on you

[metaphor]

Data is on pragmatic lockout after 3 months, not 12.

For years, enterprises have been conditioned to lean into OneDrive and forget about it. Indeed, that dark pattern is a festering disease across consumer Windows.

This is classic Microsoft long rug pull.

[kotaKat]

> Someone leaves your organisation

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/retention-and-d...

"By default, when a user is deleted, the user's manager is automatically given access to the user's OneDrive"

Seems like it should be enough time to firesale the data out you need as a manager.

[xnorswap]

It's LLM phraseology.

It comes up with a scenario where it could be a problem ( license removal ), and then it generates why a license might get removed ( "cost-saving" ).

It's not a person thinking, so there's no real thought to whether it is really a likely scenario, it's just something that sounds plausible.

I read too many blogs, I've come to spot these phrases that trip a feeling of, "Wait, do people really do that?".

You'll still have someone along in the comments to suggest that this article isn't AI slop, and that people really do remove individual one-drive licenses from active people in an organisation to cut costs, that this is just "edited" by AI, etc.

But it's slop from start to finish. Or in LLM speak, "The slop is real".

[cubefox]

Related story: I recently watched a new video by a well-known YouTuber whom I was subscribed to for years. Something was off with the video: the script sounded like LLM slop. It sounded as if the author provided some bullet points on the main content of the script, and then let the LLM "expand" on it, with its typical, overly verbose, mode-collapsed LLM style. Then the YouTuber seems to have added some light edits to the script himself because it did sound real occasionally.

This was just after a few minutes of video and I didn't finish watching it. At a quick glance, I didn't see anybody else pointing this out in the comments. Disappointing.

How can I be so certain about LLM usage after just a few minutes? It's both the fact that it sounded like slop, and the fact that I intuitively know his real writing style from past years, and it simply sounded very different this time.

An article about OneDrive being substantially LLM written is sort of okay (who cares about OneDrive by some Office365 blog), but if people you thought you like resort to these methods I feel betrayed.

[xnorswap]

I had something similar happen where someone linked a blog article, I thought it sounded like slop, especially since they were posting 2-3 articles a day, but I wasn't sure so I checked their back catalogue.

I then saw they've always written like that, and always posted 2-3 articles a day, so I figured they're prolific and LLMs copied their style.

Then I read their first post again, and realised I should check the wayback machine.

Sure enough, they had gone through their entire post history, and had rewritten it with an LLM, to make it less obvious when they started using them.

Now, this was always a bit of a junk site, a knock-off Boing Boing, but it seems incredible to me that someone would replace their original posts with AI gen.

Surely it destroys any reputation you might have?

A site they've been running for nearly 20 years, overwritten by slop.

Compare:

Original: https://web.archive.org/web/20191017113113/https://www.geeky...

Rewritten slop: https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/metal-detecting-sandals/

[cubefox]

So he is rewriting the past without any visible indicator that he did so, and with the original publication date. That's deceptive and borders on unethical.

[_-_-__-_-_-]

I get the feeling lots of blogs that are making advertising money are incentivized to do this: the most SEO buzzwords, the most "clinical" language, the most adjectives... I get that "this isn't right" feeling often now and I usually just close the browser and do something else.

[consp]

Damn this is horrible. So the author chose to waste everyone's time by expanding with cow manure. I generally don't read much articles online anymore since they are all likely to contain slop unless authored by known non-slop users.

[drob518]

Yea, that’s sad.

[Tangurena2]

> or a licence gets removed as part of

Or, as is more common in large enterprise licensing schemes - the vendor changes the terms and the customer never notices. And the .gov side of Microsoft licensing changes as often and as inscrutably as the commercial side of Microsoft licensing.

We've had more than a few discussions where conference calls with Microsoft end with the "oh, that used to be part of your license, but now it isn't" with the only solution being to bend over and open up the agency's wallet.