@cinnamon @catsalad giving me https://security.stackexchange.com/a/9498 vibes

@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.

@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"

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

@bagder @safigo Yeah these are awful.

@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.

@falcennial Define "chat with." Does "yell at to do stuff in copilot-cli" count?