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.

[internic@mathstodon.xyz]

@sundogplanets I find it so incomprehensible when people do this. If you'd wanted to ask an LLM, you could have done that yourself. It's like asking a colleague a question and getting back a response that's just a link to a Google search or a Wikipedia article (and nothing else). It seems like the implications are insulting, but it's probably more likely just thoughtless.

I have colleagues that have started doing similar things, and I also am struggling to find tactful ways to point out that it's unwelcome. Because it's so obviously foolish, it's hard to think of a way to point it out that doesn't seem insulting.

[elala@nrw.social]

@sundogplanets
🫣

[cora@hachyderm.io]

@sundogplanets That is disappointing. I honestly don’t understand why someone would even bother with that; it’s literally easier and faster to say, “no, I don’t have time.”

I think for anyone who’s taken that pill, appealing from a moral perspective is just moot. Of course all of those things are absolutely awful and destructive.

And absolutely everyone knows this.

Which means anyone still using it has already looked at the environmental, community, and cognitive damage and said, “ok”. And being on the receiving end a reminder of that probably going to just entrench them further.

Knowing that they made someone they respect feel disrespected, and that others’ impression of them has been lowered a bit? Maybe that would help.

[pascaline@mastodon.nl]

@datarama

I knew someone like that.
I tried.
For months.
But nothing changed.
Even a simple thing as looking up, shivering, and saying 'Whoa, do you think it will rain?' made him lift his phone, which he usually had in his hand.
While I was talking, he was checking his phone. I asked if he could put it down, which he did, but then he kept staring at it. It was all so pointless and sad.

@sundogplanets

[galamadryade@piaille.fr]

@sundogplanets
Erf.

Apart from all the planet-destroying stochastic parrot problem (which is real and VERY problematic), you asked for comments and they couldn't bother.

That's unprofessionnal and deeply disrespectful.

I'm so sorry.

[tony_meredith@mastodon.me.uk]

@sundogplanets I'm distant from this AI stuff. But if trust has been broken, then you might tell them about your disappointment. Basic information so that they might appreciate, on reflection, how the relationship has shifted.

[antoinechambertloir@mathstodon.xyz]

@sundogplanets I'm truly sorry for what this guy made to you.

[grymt@social.trom.tf]

@sundogplanets This cartoon by Pierre Pauma seems in order

[cjacobs73_perpetual_chrysalis@thistlenfern.org]

@sundogplanets NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[leebennett@mastodon.social]

@sundogplanets I have similar issues with people submitting items to my print shop for reproduction with an AI slop abomination of our corporate logo, and they get mad coz I won’t print it. “It looks good enough!”

https://mastodon.social/@leebennett/117424131347864136

[hsarfaraz@fosstodon.org]

@sundogplanets this is the first I heard it like that and I quite like the analogy: “forest burning plagiarism machine.”

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@sundogplanets @Beltliner403 maybe they'd understand the IP issue: now chqtgpt has your unpublished writing.

[simonoak@mastodon.ie]

@sundogplanets maybe it she was unable to decipher your handwriting

[hosford42@techhub.social]

@Littlebobbytables @datarama @sundogplanets cut out the middleman

[tiggy@mastodonapp.uk]

@sundogplanets

One of my friends used to ask me to edit her work.
I was happy to do it, and with a few hours turnaround, and free.
Then she proudly told me she was using AI now instead.

[vitor@hachyderm.io]

@sundogplanets > I also have absolutely no idea how to respond to them.

“I asked you because I wanted *your* opinion. I trusted *your* judgement.

I would have understood if you had told me you didn’t want to do it or didn’t have the availability.

In the future, please do not feed my words into an AI bot without asking, it makes me uncomfortable.”

Something like that. It’s respectful and short enough that they’ll probably read it themselves. It also leaves the door open for them to do a followup and you can take it from there.

I would avoid comments like “breach of trust” from the get-go, as it could put them on the defensive. Show yourself to be open to their view to make them open to yours. With that approach you’ll soon learn if your effort is worth the trouble, and if it’s not you can leave the relationship with a clean conscience.

[hosford42@techhub.social]

@iris @MCDuncanLab @sundogplanets

Does anybody have links for this? I'd love to know more

[macacator@mastodon.social]

@sundogplanets they're lost, no response required at that point.

[iris@neuromatch.social]

@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/

[regguy@mstdn.social]

@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.