SCNR!

People who use #AIslop as reply need to be banned from all communications alongside the kind of people that send unsolicited dick pics!

And noslopgrenade.com won't save you. People copy pasting AI responses will not understand your demand "not AI please". Especially in such a passive-aggressive manner as "here is a link with term 'slop' in it to a whole site dedicated to roasting what you just did with your AI thing because I can't be bothered to even do it myself". They will not understand. They wanted to help. They got from conversation, talked with the thing, sent result to you. They think they did work.

And this 3-posts long rumbling is a proof not only AI can write long.

I, myself, am AI sceptic. I don't use it, the more I hear about it the more reasons I have to hate it. This "no slop grenade" shit — is one of them. We can't even trust if a person wrote their genuine thoughts to you or if they just ctrl+c ctrl+v AI slop to you.

Oh, it is long? It has structure? It is generally grammatically correct? Welp, that's certainly AI because, quote: "Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste."

I call bullshit. I write essays in chat. All the time. Been doing it my whole life. And now, instead of "that was great explanation" or "thank you for clarity" I will get "here is no slop grenade, begone"? No in hell, I won't!

Redis or Memcashed (example from the link)? I don't know the subject, I don't even know if it is entirely fictional for the purpose of example but I certainly know that the answer never will be just Redis or just Memcashed. Because it depends. Because people can have opinions. With a logic behind those opinions, how they arrived to stand with Redis/Memcashed. And logic — this is the bit that is important and cannot be simplified.

Also, AI style isn't the unique AI style. It is result of training. On human text.

You mean the report I spent a year meticulously updating before you fed it into a woodchipper?

Painting a choice between "AI slop description" and "no description at all" is a false dicothomy, which is a rhetorical fallacy ill-intentioned people try to pull: portraying a bad-thing-X as "X or even-worse-Y". It's a fallacy because those are not the only options. The issue/PR author always has the 3rd option of writing a normal human message. That's why you got the "false dilemma" reply.

> The point is, don't make the maintainer wade through output to get to the point. If you didn't want to read it, the maintainer probably doesn't want to either.

In vcpkg we get lots of submissions that "look" like they're AI that are fine but we also get slop. I would not want to encourage changing the submissions that are good into having the submitter restate what the LLM said but worse, or omit bits that are important justification. But I would want them to prune the AI output of irrelevant slop garbage.

I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem

I learned that it is worse than I am

Sorry you are dealing with this especially when so overworked from recent security reports.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20221004-00/?p=107246

Of course, for vuln reports, you have to be less picky about who's reporting and what tools they use, as long as the bug is real. A bug's a bug. But in a context where hundreds of people are throwing big token budgets at a single project and largely reporting duplicates, I'd guess the odds of missing something important from a reporter who didn't even bother to write the ticket (let alone do their own dupe-checking diligence) are pretty sparse.