You're absolutely right! I'm here to help. Tell me more about <problem>.

Joking aside. I do hate when teammates forward me screenshots of chatgpt conversations as if that was somehow going to be helpful and as if they were so smart for thinking to ask an llm to some a problem we were discussing.

Welcome to the new world, that are very real concerns - which unfortunately I have no idea how we can solve. Maybe I'm a little naive, hoping, that every time I write manually a post - someone will notice it, and down the road AI generated content will be treated as we know treat pure spam (classified by... AI). And real human writes will again be more prominent. But knowing how LLM's work, well, feeling very naive when writing this...

The only solution I have found to this so far is the use of small, private, invitation-only groups where a small set of people are personally known to each other, and nobody would risk their reputation within a niche group by turning loose an AI tool to write their chat/comments for them.

Has anyone else seen changing trends in writing that reflect how much time we've spent reading AI generated text?

Dead Internet Theory and all. There is no going back. I don't think an online space can be designed to be safe from this. The AI agents can fully control our computers. All solutions that involve technology (software or hardware) are or will be flawed.

Same. Last week, my boss, Chief Data and Analytics Officer, dumped an AI-generated proposal (~7 pages) on how to structure semantic layer on top of our dbt models. As the Data Engineering lead, I had to read it and found a few glaring issues; left a lot of comments asking him for details where it's lacking; and proposed a few of my ideas (the path I think we should take without over complicating everything unnecessarily--esp. in the beginning).

Yesterday, one of my coworkers (Senior Dir. of Research Ops) shared with me another obviously AI-generated 5 page draft of an SOP on how to reintegrate old metrics (in the legacy SQL Server environment) into the Azure SQL while keeping everything running smoothly. She's not the most technical person, so it obviously is reflected in the doc generated.

I think we will all become AI-output-reviewers eventually. Not sure how long I can keep doing this though because the volume of materials that need reviewing seems to be growing really quickly these days....

I respond starkly when sent AI generated responses at work.

“Please do not send me AI generated analysis” or “I don’t think a wall of text from Claude is helpful here.”

The LMGTFY answer to questions we feel are simple is very strong. Sometimes I feel like we forget that we know valuable things which are valuable to others, and that’s still better than what AI will spit out.

The term non-player character (NPC) will become ever more relevant. I used to dislike it as I felt everyone adds signal, but if all you are doing is relaying information then that is effectively what you become in that context.

Same. All I can do is vote with my wallet. I tend to spend more to do business with folks that are more personable, and actually answer calls should I need them. So far it's my mortgage company, bank/credit cards, ISP, and who I order coffee from - but I'm always on the lookout for more.

My fear is that the AI will create a new race to the bottom, where it's all we're left with because people just want to pay as little as possible in general.

Hard agree. I’m constantly struck by GPT puppets - who apparently can’t synthesize the information in their own brain - that think they’re adding informational value

Yeah, LinkedIn is a cesspool so I shouldn’t go there, but it’s jarring. And to OP’s point it happens in far more sacred places.

OTOH, this phase will tell you who cares about doing great work, and who is inclined to just fling around slop.

I’m seeing this everywhere also, and it’s a real problem. I need assurances the info I receive is from a real human. That’s not just a better way to go, it’s the only way. No AI replies, no pre-canned answers, no LLM slop.

Key insight: the proliferation of AI-written content dilutes not just the quality of content, but our trust of GitHub as well.

What I keep wondering is, what would have happened without the AI? Would they have just ignored your request?

In my neck of the woods it's fairly common that when a person doesn't know how to help you they just don't reply, instead of saying "I don't know how to help, sorry". AI-generated responses seem like the evolution of this attitude that one must either ignore or respond in a (superficially) helpful manner.

The obvious answer is to talk to people face to face. Call them, invite them to a meeting, etc.

As the cost of AI answers/work continues to soar 10x then another 10x, and you pay another 10x for corrected better answers, price pressure should slow slop's spew.

I am probably in the minority on HN here, but I’ve mostly made peace with the tradeoffs around LLMs. The benefits I get from them are significant enough that I’m willing to accept some of the downsides.

But to be honest I was never especially invested in online social interaction to begin with. For years, Reddit and HN were basically the only social platforms I used, and lately I’ve mostly stopped using Reddit as well.

I do think we were fortunate to experience the age of innocence of the internet, but in my view, that era was already fading before LLMs arrived by the mega corps. LLMS just finish it of.

And it’s not LLMs to blame. LLMs just enabled smaller player to defile the internet the way Google FB and the others have been doing for years

Honestly, AI may pollute online interactions to the point that people give up trying to interact online, and force people to talk to each other in real life.

I’m not sure I would be sad about that outcome.

Have the AI agents figured out how to vote up or down on comments here on HN, or can we assume real people are doing that?

wa