Stop Sloppypasta

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Growing use of large language models at work is leading to a surge of “sloppypasta”: long, unedited blocks of AI-generated text pasted into chats, tickets, and emails. Many see this as rude and professionally corrosive because it offloads verification and synthesis work onto the reader, blurs authorship, and drowns out genuine human expertise and experience. Commenters debate how to push back—through etiquette sites, team policies, or simple refusal to engage—while acknowledging that AI can be valuable when outputs are curated, verified, and clearly attributed.

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.