This is slop too though, right?

> Pasting a massive AI-generated response into a chat or email where a human would write one sentence. It destroys the medium itself. Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste.

> It's like calling someone and asking "What time is the meeting?" and they read you a 10-page analysis of calendar management best practices. You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document.

It’s hard to take the site seriously if the author themself isn’t able to write

▲

foobarbecue 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I found the writing clear, concise, and human.

	▲	joenot443 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's certainly concise but I still remain unconvinced a human wrote it. > It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness. The source code is without a doubt AI (it's got a comment for the "<!-- Canonical URL -->"), so I guess one would have to assume they prepared the entire document beforehand, then fed it to Claude and instructed it to use that copy exactly. ...or they prompted "make me a site which tersely criticizes people who post AI slop on Slack, use the term slop grenade and style the site like nohello.net" Eventually you just get a sense for these things.

▲

Biganon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What makes you think this is AI slop?...

▲

joenot443 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document.

> It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness.

These are particular sentences I find questionable. Would you write that way? I certainly wouldn't.

GPTZero is by no means perfect, but it agreed this was likely generated.

	▲	nrclark an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Not the parent, but yes I would/do write that way for effect.

▲

firmretention 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]