Don't just paste the AI at me
Growing use of large language models in everyday communication is creating friction between people who paste AI-generated answers and those who find this dehumanizing or rude. Commenters argue over when it’s acceptable to forward raw LLM output—e.g., for collaborative debugging or summarizing dense docs—and when it reduces a person to a “proxy” that adds no human insight. Underneath are broader concerns about etiquette, honesty in disclosing AI use, generational norms around asking questions, and the risk that reliance on AI hollows out individual voices and online communities.
Reactions to the site and its tone
- Many like the core message but find the wording hostile, misanthropic, or unusable in professional settings.
- Others argue some crudeness is warranted because pasting AI output is itself inconsiderate.
- Several warn that sending such a link could damage relationships or careers.
Is pasting AI output inherently rude?
- One camp: pasting AI walls of text is lazy, dehumanizing, and treats the sender as a “reverse proxy” rather than a participant. Everyone has access to the same tools; the value of a human is their own synthesis.
- Another camp: it’s like quoting Wikipedia or an expert source; it can be helpful, especially if you craft a good prompt, choose a model, and vet the answer.
Asking questions vs self-service with AI
- Some see questions easily answerable by AI or search as inconsiderate, akin to old “lmgtfy” complaints.
- Others insist questions shouldn’t be policed that way; asking is part of learning and can spark richer conversation.
- A middle view: match the effort of your answer to the effort put into the question.
Social and generational dimensions
- Younger users may see asking questions online as a way to seek interaction and community, not just information.
- Corporate social media and weak FAQ/search culture are blamed for eroding “look it up first” norms.
- There’s concern that some people don’t perceive the “AI voice,” much like people who write tone-deaf emails.
Impact on communities and relationships
- Several anecdotes describe once-knowledgeable community members now responding only with AI answers, hollowing out their contributions and social capital.
- Others note family or colleagues use questions to maintain human connection, which pure AI redirection would undermine.
Context where AI pastes are acceptable
- Generally accepted: AI output pasted as a shared artifact for joint debugging, summarizing long docs, or when clearly labeled (“here’s what the model said; I think it’s right”).
- Generally rejected: AI text as the entire response, especially to personal messages or nuanced discussions, without synthesis or disclosure.
Disclosure, trust, and detection
- Some strongly prefer explicit disclosure of AI use; others note disclosure is socially punished (downvotes, distrust), which discourages honesty.
- AI-generated content in articles, comments, and narration is seen by some as a bigger, more insidious problem than overt pastes.
- The thread itself is highly polarized, with many reasonable positions on both sides being downvoted.