[tzs]

Let's turn this around.

I don't use any paid AI or any agents. I just use some of their free interactive question answering interfaces.

There have been some times where I've been doing a project in a language or environment that I do not use a lot, and maybe need to use language or environment features I've never had occasion to learn.

I don't ask AI to write it for me, or even to write any particular functions. I might ask it some syntax questions, or what data structure in the language's standard library is usually used for a particular task. Mostly I use it as an interactive manual that is really good at generating examples if I need clarification on how something works.

If you were working on a similar project and posted asking questions about it, there is a decent chance I could write a useful answer for you.

Suppose the questions would have fairly involved answers, and it might take me 30 minutes to write up something entirely in my own words. That is still going to include knowledge that I got from the AI when I questioned it earlier.

I could also cover the same points, except for parts of it where what I'd be saying is mostly just writing in my own words what the AI taught me (and which I verified is correct before using), so might have to only spend about 4 minutes writing original material, and another minute doing some selected copy/paste from the AI (maybe with some editing).

That 5 minute answer would be exactly as useful in answering your questions as the 30 minute answer.

I don't know you. I have no reason to try to help you other than a general "it is nice to help people" thing.

If you can't be bothered to read it because I didn't spend 500% more time than was necessary to fully answer your questions (time that benefits me in no way whatsoever), why should I bother answering at all?

[thunderfork]

I feel like "having enough useful context to be jumping in and answering the question in question" and "needing an LLM to shave off 25 minutes of writing on the subject" feel like they're incompatible premises.

I would prefer you give me whatever part of your answer takes you five minutes and then I can work from there on my end, in the method and with the tools I see fit. In other words - give me the prompt.

Totally possible I'm misunderstanding the situation you're presenting, though.

[ClikeX]

> If you were working on a similar project and posted asking questions about it, there is a decent chance I could write a useful answer for you.

But if you do not know the environment, and use AI to create the answers and phrasing. Then you don't really sound like the authority to help me on that particular subject. Why not refer to the authority on the subject instead, or just send the prompts instead so the person on the other end can do their own processing.

If you don't know the answer to something, you don't need to reply. I get the idea of wanting to help people, and it's a nice sentiment. But it's also good to know where your expertise ends.

And the issue with these large generated blog post type things is that I don't know how well the author actually understands the subject. The LLM might've just gotten the right info and and wrote some confident text surrounding it. But it's framed as if the person wrote it. When they might just passing it off as their own. But I don't read blog posts or seek out forums to converse with LLMs, if I wanted that I would've used the LLM myself. Because if it's not the person's own thoughts, what's even the point of communication.

[brettpro]

This isn't really helping to be nice, though. It's outsourcing the hard part in a way that presents as "nice and helpful" and frames yourself as knowledgeable, skilled, experienced, or trustworthy in a way that doesn't match reality.

[tzs]

Suppose I'm trying to explain how a project works and as part of that I need to explain about an algorithm I found in a book, are people going to object if I say "Here's an explanation from <cite to book>" and quote a few paragraphs?

Suppose instead I found that algorithm by describing the task I needed an algorithm for and asking an AI for the most used algorithms for that task. I picked one of its suggestions, read up on it to make sure what the AI said about it is correct, and then I implemented it. If when explaining how the project works to others I say "Here is a good explanation from <cite to AI> on how this algorithm works. I have verified that this is accurate", and quote the AIs explanation how is that different from the book case?

[andawaywego]

something akin to degrees of separation from the source, considering people have been complaining about this when it was "here's an explanation from google/wikipedia/stackoverflow" long before llms

[ClikeX]

Yeah, essentially. Just the first google hit without checking if it actually fits the use case. Or just throwing you a insanely long article about a topic. Maybe tell me what section it's in, or briefly tell me why it's relevant.

[ClikeX]

> "Here is a good explanation from <cite to AI> on how this algorithm works. I have verified that this is accurate", and quote the AIs explanation how is that different from the book case?

I mean this is fine really, as long it's clear to me that you've actually done something with the content. And it's okay when I already know you and know that you actually do the research on the topics the LLM retrieves for you. It's much different when you don't know each other and you just get some generated response. I have no clue if you've digested the information and verified it before giving it to me, or just tossed it over the fence.

The big issue I have with it in this thread is things like blog posts and comments that seem straight up copied from the LLM. At that point the blog seems meaningless to me. It's not the author's work, it's ChatGPT or Claude, so why would I bother reading their prompt's output. I go to a blog for their writing, not the LLM.

Similarly, I go to a concert to hear the artists. I would be very uninterested to a see an empty stage and hearing an AI generated "live version" blasting through the speakers.