I think the real problem is that AI quality falls short of the wild promises.

Labeling what is "AI" would be like highlighting in an email what I'm obligated to say by HR, my boss, etc. It doesn't make anything less boneheaded.

Human effort was already low before AI and now it's even lower. Garbage in, garbage out.

▲

esikich 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think this is because a lot of people think more is more. Wow look at all the detail and bullet points! No one on the receiving end actually wants that though. When I use AI to write, it's to boil it down to the minimum bits needed. I wish more people would use it that way.

▲

SchemaLoad 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's the empty calories of literature. More would be more if there actually was more but AI writing is making it bigger without adding anything actually more. It inserts loads of fluff and repetition that takes longer to read but doesn't exchange more information or ideas.

	▲	_carbyau_ 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Which is why so many people want to see the prompt that generated the text. Because the prompt is the quintessence of intent regarding the information to be conveyed.
	▲	skydhash 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lossy expansion of information.

▲

HKH2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nah on the receiving end an AI makes a summary of it.

▲

johnsmith1840 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AI having poor quality is a bad take like over a year ago.

	▲	folkrav 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Meh. Just this week, I've had two Sonnet 4.8 agents generate, in parallel, a 2000 line wall of brittle bullshit, and a well architected solution with 20% of the amount of code, to the same problem, from the exact same initial context, and very similar prompts. Come on, they can do poor quality work too.
	▲	cwmoore 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Depending on what you or another means by "quality", it may not have any at all.