I attribute people returning AI answers to a desire to feel valued and to feel that they contribute something to the person asking the question. But they are not self-aware or confident enough to understand that they should preface the AI response with:

"Interesting question, I asked Claude that question, and here's what I got for a response. Here's what I thought was interesting about Claude's response and what I think applies. What do you think?

▲

sixtyj an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I would rather hear the answer “I don’t know. I had to look it up.” (And I don’t care what you have used as sources, as citing counts with norms/laws or in academics.)

If you really rewrite LLM’s response in your own words, I will know that you have learnt something.

Because if you tell me directly that you have asked Claude, next time I will probably ask Claude directly as I don’t need you.

And we won’t be able to distinguish what is yours and what is claude’s so I’ll be subconsciously suspicious that the whole answer is ai-generated (/skill me-persona-answer-descriptive)

That is the reason why doctors wear white and have stethoscope. In many cases people don’t argue with their opinion as they know that doctor had to spend 6 years to earn it. But if they admit LLM as a source they are becoming replaceable.

The emphasis should be on “rewriting”, even kids know copy-paste and it doesn’t count :)

	▲	lazystar 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Because if you tell me directly that you have asked Claude, next time I will probably ask Claude directly as I don’t need you. and what if i tell you i asked stack overflow?
	▲	jimbokun 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You should abso-fucking-lutely use sources and cite them when trying to answer questions. What is this macho bullshit of pretending like you have memorized all information you might ever need and looking something up is a sign of inadequacy? And yes Claude or whatever is just another source, to be verified just like any other.

▲

LeifCarrotson an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem is that most of the people in my circle who are returning AI answers to emails and chat messages do not understand enough about the topic to know whether a question is interesting or not, which parts of the response are interesting, and which parts apply.

They seem to think they've more or less solved the problem by posting an LLM's response to the issue or concern I've raised.

▲

jimbokun 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I’m just wondering how those people don’t understand they are strongly signaling their job can be fully done by an LLM.

▲

sumanthvepa an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

But why would ask these people about topics they don't understand? Or they sending you unsolicited responses?

	▲	holden_nelson 39 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not the person you’re replying to, but, because I don’t know what they know. “I don’t really know much about that, go ask _____” is the desired response in that situation
	▲	jimbokun 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Maybe it’s part of the things required by their job description to understand.
	▲	jamespo an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe they are hoping for a tiny bit of research / looking into things

▲

48terry 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

...But even that sucks. I want to talk to YOU, about THIS. Not talk about your book report of Claude's output. Why would I want to do that? Why am I supposed to care about what you thought was interesting about Claude's output or how it was applicable? You turned me talking to you about something into a book report about the chatbot.