I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
-
I spent some time about 20 years ago talking to someone who wanted to contribute to one of my projects who didn't understand why he should be polite. He viewed politeness as a set of arbitrary rules that made no sense to him. This forced me to think of the underlying commonality between things that I considered polite. That was what I came up with and I've found it a useful framing since. It's also helped me discard some notions of polite behaviour that really are just cultural conditioning and don't benefit anyone else if I follow them.
It is literally "conversational cancer" as the LLMs were trained off of the formerly healthy human conversations and the growth of this kind of response leads unavoidably to collapse of the body if it is not impeded.
Unlike other kinds of cancer, the best treatment is a sustained campaign of shaming.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall thank you. It's amazing how many people don't seem to understand this simple concept. I saw a thread yesterday where someone was complaining they were banned from Wikipedia and their appeal was rejected because they used an LLM to write it. They didn't seem to grasp how rude it is to waste the time of an unpaid volunteer and thought it shouldn't make any difference; it absolutely does
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
That's kind of second order rudeness. Because on the surface LLMs are like kind and well educated. But in human perspective it's at least toxic behavior. Or in other words: superficially good and friendly transactions are in fact passive aggressive behavior. Please forgive me my new invented term "second order rudeness".
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall
Quality:
cognitive value to the audience,
divided by processing effort imposed ?Sperber and Wilson experimented with this kind of schematic, and the implicit assumptions of polite communication, in Relevance Theory (1995)
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall yes! I've long shared this tip with colleagues who want to be taken seriously as experts: if they're authoring a document or wiki page intended to have many readers, it's rude to dump cognitive effort onto every single one of those readers by failing to be clear and concise. So make the effort - it'll be noticed and appreciated.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall On the other hand... If the MGMT give you a bs task to do, that will be judged by weight not merit, a locally run LLM can save you hours... They get what they deserve...
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall this observation reminds me of @glyph 's article here: https://blog.glyph.im/2026/06/adversarial-communication.html
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange This 100% lines up with the people I've encountered who are loud about AI usage. There's a consistent lack of kindness and empathy (which, when you know how these things work and what they need to do in order to work, yeah, lacking empathy is a requirement). When you call them out on their bad behavior, they act exactly how someone being rude behaves: they're offended because they can't possibly be doing anything wrong (from their perspective), how dare you criticize them?
sigh, it's like my mother all over again -
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall
The whole notion of taking others into account seems to be lost on lots of people. If one doesn't think about your time at all, one can't be blamed for assuming anything about it... (but still be rightfully called an arsehole ;-)) -
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
That which we find annoying in others - they find annoying in us.
Really easy test: did the critics take linear algebra. If not, they aren’t talking about AI
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall this is all of LinkedIn.
“Look at this post [A]I have written to make me look good.”
I greatly improved my quality of life by deleting that app.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall That's an excellent way of putting it, David. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
-
@david_chisnall
If a client uses a generative model to extrude a guide image and expects you to put effort into redrawing it to launder their plagiarism, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.@KronoGarrett @david_chisnall only if they expect to pay you less because of said extrusion. If they’re just using it to provide an example of what they’re looking for then I’d say it’s no more rude than sending any other example. Still hate it because of all the other problems with LLMs but I wouldn’t call that rude per se.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall this is not just impolite, it’s called “externalizing the costs” and it’s the root of extractive capitalism, and therefore of all evil
-
@KronoGarrett @david_chisnall only if they expect to pay you less because of said extrusion. If they’re just using it to provide an example of what they’re looking for then I’d say it’s no more rude than sending any other example. Still hate it because of all the other problems with LLMs but I wouldn’t call that rude per se.
@pier @david_chisnall It shows that the client doesn’t really care about the art or artist…
Digging through an artbook, writing a few sentences, stick figures, hero forge, etc is all the client needs to do. That’s not much work at all, but it matters.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall You encapsulate much that is badly wrong with many people these days because of too much time inside tech.
Playing games of Go now - a deeply complex game requiring thought and analysis to play well - most players play insanely fast, rarely speak and just do not care in the slightest that they are playing another human.
It is very chilling how deep the lack of humanity can be.
-
@KronoGarrett @david_chisnall only if they expect to pay you less because of said extrusion. If they’re just using it to provide an example of what they’re looking for then I’d say it’s no more rude than sending any other example. Still hate it because of all the other problems with LLMs but I wouldn’t call that rude per se.
@pier @david_chisnall I don’t think you understand just how insulting showing slop to an artist is. It’s like someone bringing in the reanimated corpse of their mother and saying “can you make her look natural, my family reunion is next week.”
-
I was trying to work out yesterday why LLM users annoy me so much and it came back to my basic notion of rudeness: impolite behaviour stems from assuming that your time is worth more than other people's.
If someone doesn't bother to write coherent words in a message to you so that they can type faster at the cost of your comprehension speed, they're trading your time for theirs and that's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to create more words from fewer ideas, that saves them time in careful expression at the cost of more work for you. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write code that doesn't work and expects other people to help debugging it, then they're saying that it isn't worth their time to learn but it is worth your time to help them. That's rude.
If someone uses an LLM to write some code that looks like it works and expects you to put effort into reviewing a PR, again, they're saving work for themselves at the expense of your time. That's rude.
Almost all LLM uses are like this: they save the user time (at least, in the short term) by making more work for someone else. They're machines optimised for creating rudeness.
There are a bunch of places where you do trade different people's time. In particular, if tasks A and B need doing, but person 1 can do either and person 2 can do only task B, then it makes sense for person 2 to do task B so that person 1 can do task A. That's not because person 1's time is more valuable, it's because person 1 doing task A is more valuable. It's not that your time is more valuable than the cleaner's time, but the cleaner doing their job means that you can spend my time doing more valuable tasks.
@david_chisnall Borrowing terminology from distributed denial of service, you could call LLMs a kind of amplification attack.
