[gruntled-worker]

Until ~2000, "cellphone user in public" equated with "smug asshole." We're at that icky rejection stage with AI.

Two years ago, that writeup would have been viewed as a generous gift of time to the community. Now we can't be bothered to read through it because we know where it came from, and that it's just worth $0.06 in tokens. Another reason (I think) is because we know what it portends.

In a few years, digging manually through bugs will probably be a last resort. We'll go from sneering to yawning at the reports, as another AI agent reads them and verifies the fix. Just like we ignore compiler-generated assembly code and people on their cellphones.

[doubletwoyou]

If we know ‘where it came from’ in the sense that the author couldn’t even bother writing anything themselves, why should other people bother reading this deluge of nonsensical strung together words?

[gruntled-worker]

That's my point, we won't bother reading it. We'll let agents read it. People will eventually stop getting ticked off at this stuff.

One exception: if the model is poor or on 'low' and that leads to a crappy report. That's the equivalent of shipping performance-critical code built with -O0 in the compiler analogy.

[krageon]

This is a crappy report, that's what is being discussed

[gruntled-worker]

Is there any indication that it was a mini/fast/older model, or on a low effort level? My read of the reactions above is "ugh AI", not "ugh AI on the cheap". Not a single poster mentioned model or effort choice. It seems more like the usual irritation at "AI slop".

If you just mean that the result was technically incorrect or off, that's probably true, but it doesn't affect my argument.

[RideOnTime22]

It's less "can't be bothered to read through it because we know where it came from" and more "can't be bothered to read through it because of how word-salad it is"

Unless heavily prompted the written output is always so dense that you can barely understand it.