I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
-
@iris @MCDuncanLab @sundogplanets
Thanks!
I was hoping someone might have links about Anthropic specifically. OpenAI is already known to be a bad actor in this respect, but Anthropic's reputation is generally better. Someone I know insists it's safe to use Anthropic tools for research because of their ZDR policy. If there was documented misbehavior on this front, it would be a counterexample to point to.
@hosford42 @MCDuncanLab @sundogplanets ah, my bad, I misremembered the roles of the players. I don't have a specific link for that.
-
@Marrekoo @sundogplanets @ravenbait it can work (if the other person cares!) in situations where you disagree on fundamentals: I realize this isn't something that bothers you, but this bothers me quite a bit, and I find it very hurtful that you would continue to do this [involving me somehow], knowing how I feel about it. It's the agree to disagree that still comes with action.
Which can make it a difficult approach to want to take: clearly I am right and you should be convinced, you should realize why I am right, I should not have to resort to couching it as you tiptoeing around my feelings. It can feel degrading to work out how to phrase it.
But sometimes it's the only thing I can find that works.
@iris @sundogplanets @ravenbait well said. On the other hand, it does offload stuff to the other party. The hardest thing to do is receiving feedback well. They might take it in to think about it, they might concede and try to change their behaviour, or they might shrug it off or refute it. That's on the other side to decide. And it makes it clear what to expect/invest in the future.
-
@ravenbait Yeah I will DEFINITELY point out that part. I have to think about how to say it politely so it doesn't just bounce off their brain.
I have to think about how to say it politely so it doesn't just bounce off their brain.
A non-threatening allegory can be effective, since there is almost always a consent framing that can connect with a person's life.
Since they're a scientist, maybe "if you asked me to review some numbers from (your project) and I forwarded them to (competing lab) to check, how would you feel?"
Alternately some folks connect with concrete, real examples, so you could cite the mathematicians whose work was visible to OpenAI's training, and then subsequently OpenAI beat them to publishing, using suspiciously identical phrasings.
-
@Marrekoo @sundogplanets @ravenbait it can work (if the other person cares!) in situations where you disagree on fundamentals: I realize this isn't something that bothers you, but this bothers me quite a bit, and I find it very hurtful that you would continue to do this [involving me somehow], knowing how I feel about it. It's the agree to disagree that still comes with action.
Which can make it a difficult approach to want to take: clearly I am right and you should be convinced, you should realize why I am right, I should not have to resort to couching it as you tiptoeing around my feelings. It can feel degrading to work out how to phrase it.
But sometimes it's the only thing I can find that works.
@iris @Marrekoo @sundogplanets @ravenbait
I would try to avoid sending anything to him like the plague.
But if this can't be avoided, your answer seems very sensible.
If he even bothers to read the message, of course.
-
@hosford42 @MCDuncanLab @sundogplanets not sure if this is the one I read, but I think it covers the case I mentioned: https://thecybersecguru.com/news/openai-navier-stokes-proof/
@iris @hosford42 There's even a wikipedia page on it now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority_controversy
-
@kim @frincon @sundogplanets I don't have that kind of access, unfortunately.
@ravenbait @kim @frincon @sundogplanets
It is very likely that kind of people is feeding all their email into an AI and only reading the briefs the AI generates for them, and skimming the answers. So the effect of that kind of warning is probably very limited.
But it can't do no harm.
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
Crap. Unfortunately I have had to do the same with my friends and editors. People I once trusted use AI now, and I can't even send it to entire domains (I.e. gmail) because I know that it all gets scanned into the AI. I wish I had answers but I don't...
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
@sundogplanets Just be honest with them. Say something like “I asked you for YOUR personal opinion and critique, not a llm. If I really wanted this response I could have done it myself (but there are multiple reasons why I WILL NOT). Do you not have the time or respect for me and my work or myself to not read what I wrote and respond with your own words and feedback?”
Sorry, I couldn’t help but make unnecessary suggestions
.
I’m also too blunt with people when they cross me. -
i would be shocked if your department had on retainer an IP lawyer, but if they do, give them the heads up that you will be referring the colleague to them for a TL;DR on how that’s an infringement on your team’s copyright and that they will be liable for any plagiarism that results from it.
which, of course, means that now y’all need to create a boilerplate for all emails and comminications about reserving all rights and not giving permission for LLM imput etc
@blogdiva @sundogplanets this is brilliant. "I'm sorry, I really really hate to do this but I had to ask the lawyers and here's what they said" is a power move. Tenure doesn't shield against a legal advisor's recommendations.
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
@sundogplanets "I asked for YOUR input, not ChatGPT's" would be an appropriate response. Not sure if it's worth it though.
So sorry. That really has to hurt. I'd feel betrayed.
-
@sundogplanets @LJ How about telling them that if you wanted AI slop, you would've asked ChatGPT yourself?
He probably feed it to a specifically tailored GPT, in order to make sure that GPT reflects his knowledge and points of view, and they reviewed it later, yada, yada, yada.
He probably is very proud of his achievements configuring that GPT, and maybe even get offended by anybody implying that the answer is the same as asking a bare ChatGPT prompt for it.
Crazy people says crazy things.
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
-
@raymaccarthy @ravenbait @sundogplanets That's a semantic argument. Her content was given to an "AI" bot that is more than just an LLM, and that content has been assimilated by that bot into its source material. It now knows what Prof. Lawler wrote. It can then freely use that without her permission.
@RegGuy @ravenbait @sundogplanets
In a sane world it's called copyright violation and sending something to someone for comment doesn't give them rights to share it to a 3rd party. Especially not a corporation that ignores copyright."It" can't freely use that without her permission, it can use the copied material without her permission.
Outside of USA in most countries a work is automatically copyright. The person asked for comment has broken copyright. They could be successfully sued.
-
I really appreciate all the great advice and suggestions. I'm just... so disappointed and know I have to approach all my interactions with this person differently in the future. I've written up a long email, but I'm realizing that won't work as well as having a conversation with the person. Especially because I'm likely to start crying during the conversation. So. That's going to be FUN.
But maybe it will help one person be less addicted to the forest-burning plagiarism machine? Maybe?
Have the difficult conversation but follow it up with an email to reiterate your points.
I've had to do this a few times in the latter part of my career
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
@sundogplanets : my own answer:
https://ploum.net/2026-09-09-ai_policy.html
Or, more gentle: "If I wanted the advice of ChatGPT, why would I ask you?"
I means, even if ChatGPT was ethical, it makes no sense. It is even very rude! They give your text to ChatGPT without your consent and acknowledge that they don’t want to give you some of their time.
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
@sundogplanets “I asked for your opinion, not a bot’s”
Difficult situation. Good luck
-
@iris @Marrekoo @sundogplanets @ravenbait
I would try to avoid sending anything to him like the plague.
But if this can't be avoided, your answer seems very sensible.
If he even bothers to read the message, of course.
-
Random pronoun.
Any suggestion of which pronoun I should have used?
English is not my first language.
-
@ravenbait @kim @frincon @sundogplanets
It is very likely that kind of people is feeding all their email into an AI and only reading the briefs the AI generates for them, and skimming the answers. So the effect of that kind of warning is probably very limited.
But it can't do no harm.
@jcurioso @kim @frincon @sundogplanets Might work on the AI, though.
-
I asked a trusted colleague for comments on a written document and they fed it in to chatGPT and sent me back that output and I just want to cry.
Guess I won't be asking that person for help or advice on anything anymore. Enshittification happens in people's writing skills too, I guess.
I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them. If you're that far down the genAI black hole I don't think pointing out the ethical/environmental/cognitive issues will help. Fuck.
@sundogplanets I would be telling them that “sorry, I was asking for your opinion not ChatGPT output.”
