AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

arm32

This is HW;DR: human-written, did read

sega_sai

If some text is AI written as a response to a much shorter prompt, then the prompt and/or sources used to make the text should be published instead (or at the very least together with the text).

Terr_

> TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) was the solution for social media. > AI;DR (AI; didn’t read) is the solution for AI slop. Maybe I'm the odd one out here and didn't plumb the worse-depths of social media, but I feel I need to defend good old TLDR as a slightly different, and less-hostile animal. It can be a moral condemnation of the poster, where they're disrespecting everyone else's time by posting something big and vague... But it usually isn't. At least half the time TLDR is someone providing a summary because they think it'd be useful (even of it's sometimes a hostile interpretation.)

pixelesque

Too sloppy, didn't read.

Gecko4072

I thought this was: I summarized with AI; didn't read.

eddieroger

>However, I have a new policy. >If you’re not bothered enough to review and edit it... >...then I’m not going to bother reading it. Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but we've had copywriters and editors for generations now. Not reading something because AI did the post-writing work feels kinda weak. Skip stuff started from AI, fine, but this is just because it's AI, not because the author didn't do the task. And I do get the point is that if an AI did /most/ of the work, ok to that, too, but not post-write processing alone.

jannyfer

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=2&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991394

CyberMacGyver

Don’t be a meat proxy [0] is another one I like [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49151933

ademup

I'll probably be downvoted to the bottom of the ocean, but I feel this needs to be said: - Why does it matter who or what wrote a thing? And how would you know if the /content/ is worthwhile, unless you read it... - The ability to "detect AI" is imperfect at best. 90% AI written? 5%? How would you know, unless you read it.... - If you didn't read it, then why brag about it with an "AI;DR"? - If you are wrong, and you announce it to the world, how would it feel to someone who spent a lot of time and energy writing?

krona

A similar metaphor (I think I came up with but can't remember) is the slop sandwich. You can deliver slop to me but only when wrapped in a thick layer of human intervention (which usually also means removing 50% of the slop)

whstl

There is a light at the end of the tunnel for all the minds burned out by AI slop. I already saw someone getting fired for only producing AI text as part of their entire output, after being unable to explain what they “wrote” in multiple situations. And recently my company enacted a mandate that text made for humans should not be AI generated. Sooner or later every company will start realizing that this is just people too lazy to actually work and coasting on a paycheck, at the expense of every other worker.

montroser

I am pro AI, and also deeply share this sentiment. I think sometimes people have a big long thread with Claude where they feel enthusiastic about the back and forth being very productive -- and then they genuinely want to share the summary of the conversation with their colleagues so that they can feel it too. It's not just typing a short prompt and copy/pasting the response. But, Claude, especially Opus is so unnecessarily flowery, and smug -- and it's so identifiably characteristic. It somehow rubs salt in the wound: "I didn't take the time to write this out in my own words, so now you get to listen to this petulant asshole mansplain it to you". If it would get to the point, and with some humility, it would be a much different proposition.

gortok

The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six that it's not universally offensive and reviling to post an AI-generated response to another person. If I'm reading something on the internet, I'm either reading it to learn, or I'm reading it to be persuaded. If I wanted the LLM to teach me (thank you, no), I would ask an LLM. I'm reading your website/newsletter/email because I want to hear from you. . If you can't be bothered to put your time into writing it and teaching me what you think, why should I be bothered to read it?

supermatt

I submit pretty much the opposite of this, but it didn't gain any traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49332291

classictraffic

This blog post also feels AI written (I can tell it’s human written, just sloppy)

a2ff6eeb0

Eventually, AI will be a far better writer than a human is, and then nobody will want to read the human generated subpar writing. AI writing is rapidly improving. Human writing, on average not so much.

slybot

3 years ago; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35638229

thm

Eternal September already?

cortesoft

I really like the point I read somewhere the other day; instead of sending me the AI output, just send me the prompt you used to generate it. That is the only part that contains only the information you are trying to convey. The rest is just guesses flowery language added, and it confuses the actual message being sent.