Stop Sloppypasta

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What “sloppypasta” is

  • Defined as unedited, unrequested, verbatim LLM output pasted at someone.
  • Seen as “slop” (generic AI content) plus “copypasta” (mindless pasting).
  • Related terms and jokes: “workslop,” “ensloppification,” “slop posters,” etc.

Why people find it problematic

  • Imposes verification work on the reader that the sender didn’t do.
  • Often verbose, generic, and mismatched to the situation or question.
  • Masks the sender’s lack of understanding while sounding authoritative.
  • Breaks the social contract when a human answer or subjective experience was explicitly requested.
  • Compared to dumping raw search results or LMGTFY links, but worse because it’s harder to quickly dismiss and may be wrong.

Workplace impacts

  • Shows up in PR descriptions, Jira tickets, specs, middle‑management docs, support emails, even clinical trial planning.
  • Signal for some managers to question performance; others note that “sloppers” can be high‑rank and hard to push back on.
  • Creates “toss it over the fence” behavior: long, sloppy tickets handed to engineers to untangle.

How to respond to sloppypasta

  • Suggestions:
    • Quiet 1:1 conversations explaining the burden.
    • Ask politely if it’s LLM output and request their own view.
    • Ignore or respond with a short line instead of matching the wall of text.
    • Use patterns/policies (“AI etiquette”) rather than calling out individuals.
  • Others recommend embracing tension and clearly signaling that such content won’t be taken seriously.
  • Some advocate simply not engaging and letting consequences accumulate.

Proposed etiquette and alternatives

  • If AI is used, summarize, fact‑check, and clearly state what was verified.
  • Consider sharing the prompt (or improved prompts) instead of the raw answer.
  • Keep AI outputs concise and audience‑appropriate; don’t paste chat logs.
  • Some argue banning visible “ChatGPT says” may backfire by pushing AI use underground.

Broader concerns and meta‑discussion

  • Worries about an “AI vs AI” future where bots generate and filter slop.
  • Recognition that low‑effort content predated AI, but LLMs massively reduce cost and increase volume, making it harder to filter.
  • Debate over whether anger is productive: some see it as necessary for forming norms; others say energy should go to better filters and personal boundaries.
  • Ironic note that the anti‑sloppypasta site itself used AI for design and editing, prompting discussion about “good” vs “bad” AI assistance.