Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE.
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder ai can't write normally when it comes to development
they write stale and robotic because they think that the project requires stale and robotic
(+ emdashes everywhere)
i do agree tho
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder "Not worth writing, not worth reading" has a delightfully similar cadence to "not my circus, not my monkeys", and in the last year or two it's given me about the same peace of mind.
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.
-
@bagder @safigo Raymond Chen calls these "being on the other side of an airtight hatchway", which I really like.
Sorry you are dealing with this especially when so overworked from recent security reports.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20221004-00/?p=107246
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder honestly, I have a hard time wording things right, so I tested local AI to see if it could help me
I learned that it is worse than I am
-
@bagder Pasting an AI response as long as it's accurate and the person pasting it clearly understands what's going on can be OK. It's the clearly "this person is being a crappy conduit to a chat bot somewhere" behavior that sucks.
@malwareminigun @bagder even when it’s accurate, though, it’s unpleasant to read — it’s overly verbose, riddled with irrelevant minutiae, and devoid of conversational inflection.
-
@malwareminigun @bagder even when it’s accurate, though, it’s unpleasant to read — it’s overly verbose, riddled with irrelevant minutiae, and devoid of conversational inflection.
@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"
I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem
-
-
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder Straight to jail. Right away.
-
@bagder I maybe missing something, but what do you have an example?
I think it’s better than no description at all
-
@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"
I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem
@kumarvibe Sorry for repeated posts, I'm having difficulty putting what I'm trying to get at into words. Maybe something like:
> 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.
-
@bagder I think this is an instance of "If you couldn't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it."
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder thank you for being so clear about the issues here
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder I have no business talking with aiparrots. If I wanted an airesponse I would've asked the AI myself.
-
@safigo @mk I'll answer literally since your "why?" seems well-intentioned, given your other comments.
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.
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder "Let me Google that for you," but in 2026
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder At work, I had a report with data I pulled every week for the past year. Beautifully streamlined and perfectly easy to understand. An idiot manager asked for a report on exactly what I had. I sent it to him. He fed it to an AI which hallucinated most of the data incorrectly and turned my charts into a jittery slop mess. He said, thanks, I'll use the report I got from Claude.
You mean the report I spent a year meticulously updating before you fed it into a woodchipper?
-
@safigo @mk I'll answer literally since your "why?" seems well-intentioned, given your other comments.
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.
@hisham_hm @mk thanks for the detailed explanation
-
@bboreham.bsky.social The problem is you don't know if it is slop copy-paste or a genuine human response because — and it might be a shock to a lot of people who love TL:DR's and hate long one-piece messages instead of 50 one-sentence messages — people actually are capable of writing more than 10 words when they want to be understood correctly or to show their logic behind their answer. Also things are often complex and cannot be simplified down to a catchphrase.
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.
-
@bboreham.bsky.social The problem is you don't know if it is slop copy-paste or a genuine human response because — and it might be a shock to a lot of people who love TL:DR's and hate long one-piece messages instead of 50 one-sentence messages — people actually are capable of writing more than 10 words when they want to be understood correctly or to show their logic behind their answer. Also things are often complex and cannot be simplified down to a catchphrase.
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.
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!
