I think a lot of that is people who were always very insecure because they’re mediocre engineers. Previously asking questions or not understanding something was a bit painful but now you can hear “you’re absolutely right!” and make progress all day every day. Until you need to interact with actual humans and that’s why you try to minimise it, hiding behind ai generated content.

Everyone I know, including myself, is simultaneously extremely pro-AI and anti-AI for this reason.

I always put myself in the shoes of the reader when relaying Claudeslop. I either use it as a reference and write it by hand or make Claude edit it 10+ times until it's conveying only the needed information, and in simple, clear words, and without annoying Claudeisms.

He's basically asking other people to do his job for him, because he knows that the AI doesn't truly do it well enough.

I would say to him that if he wants me to do his job, he needs to pay me his salary.

> Au psychosis is getting seriously outrageous at this point

So... back to a currency backed by gold?

On the contrary, I kind of love this as form of malicious compliance. I'd wager money that the PO/BAs have been demanding "comprehensive documentation" for a very long time, and now they are getting what they've asked for good and hard.

>Thankfully I'm a dev and thus aren't in the blast radius of that genius idea

yes you are

When some people call this "Verification Debt" or something similar, that is setting the Overton Window upon this phenomena adversely upon the verifiers. I call it an application of Brandolini's Law:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.""

Until you put in at least the same amount of energy required to verify the AI output as you are asking others to put in to verify it, the AI output you are wielding must be considered bullshit. Really, it should be based upon the verification requestor's historical trust score and how many human verifiers are looped in. A Verification Tax, so to speak:

The energy the creator must spend (Ec) is determined by a function of the number of reviewers requested (N) and the historical trust score of that creator's AI outputs (T).

Ec = N * (1 - T)

what is often overlooked in corporate culture: if you take a step back, two coworkers refusing to cooperate, regardless of the reason, is a typical "corporate kindergarten" scenario for the manager to take care of.

To avoid rushed or incorrect decisions, conflicts intentionally move through gradual escalation. If someone behaves unprofessionally, for example by submitting a code review they do not understand, the first step is to establish the likely cause.

They may ultimately be at fault, but that does not absolve the surrounding environment. The culture may be toxic, deadlines unrealistic, or communication poor.

The best course of action for someone directly affected by uncooperative coworkers is to avoid assuming ill intent. Get them on a call and let them explain their pull request, however trivial the issue may seem. Even if the gesture is misinterpreted, you still have a far stronger position than righteous indignation.

Because engineers don’t decide on hiring and firing. The managers all have KPIs to transform the org into AI-native. This is the kind of behavior that organizations encourage right now.

I get it’s annoying and I personally hate it but firing someone for it is ridiculous. Are you expecting everyone to rewrite everything from an AI before they share it because that doesn’t sound a good use of company time either.

The psychosis is largely coming from the top.

Because it's harder to fire managers. And even harder to fire executives.

Who goes when companies need to downsize? Rarely executives; they'll always find a way to be retained...hell, they're the ones with the power to decide who goes.

It seems that this is largely coming from higher ups who are probably (consciously or not) testing the waters for LLMs being able to replace the people they're dumping the walls of text on. I don't mean in any sort of malicious penny pinching scheme either, but simply people wanting to be able to do things quickly and as close to their own demands as possible, while getting rid of the 'middle man.' It just so happens that as LLMs become ever more capable of delivering on e.g. software tasks, software engineers start to become the middle men.

How can it be a fireable offense when it's actively encouraged and rewarded?

Let me give you a scenario and see if it is in this same fireable offense line:

An Ops person who deals with company code base but is not a SWE in the code base regularly has to work around issues with this software (They are OPs). However they have read access to the source.

In the past, they see a bug and open a jira with how it was found for the dev team, and it may or may not ever get looked at.

Now ops can point claude to the repo and it can most likely [but not always] find the issue.

So this ops person can do most of the work of reproducing the bug and finding the problem/solution but doesn't understand the code. Should they not produce the findings for someone else to read/validate? Should they go back and just open the ticket the old way?

That would make execs who asked staff to tokenmaxx look even sillier than they already are.

Asking someone to ask an LLM is peak laziness.

"Is Claude secure?"

“I ask Claude only questions to which I don’t know answers to - which there are plenty of. That saves the company money by avoiding frivolous use of tokens.”

Ask Claude to generate a few numbers using it and tell you if they are random or not

I wonder if there is something like nohello.net but norawllmoutput.net

> What the hell is the point of human interaction if the "human" just forwards a chat bot's response

Forwarding an AI response (or any canned response) sends the message that they don’t want to interact with you. That could be intentional.

At least those (at least the detectable ones) seem to be downvoted en masse, called out, or flagged. They aren't even allowed as per the guidelines[0]:

> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> What the hell is the point of human interaction if ...

Sadly, the point is validating the human worth of the human who can't do any better than this.

But, assuming you're not stuck on that human's Self Esteem Care Team, it can be tricky to tell them that they need to seek validation elsewhere.

Exactly! When someone does it at work, I get a bit sad because my conclusion is that whoever does it can't like their job very much. But that's ok – not liking your job very much is compatible with an otherwise happy life.

When people start doing it in an entirely voluntary human-to-human situation, like having a conversation online about a topic of interest, I'm gobsmacked.

It’s truly unhinged behavior that has me questioning how much longer I want to remain in the industry. You always knew that 80% of the people on any team or in any large company just didn’t care. But now you see who these people are out in the open.

I had a guy with more senior title say “I love the new api and cli. Is anyone working on the docs? Because I can take a crack at them” then goes to generate 12 markdown files, and shares them with me. All the cli commands and APIs are wrong. I was very confused. You have the api spec, and the cli. You couldn’t point your agent to them to validated the commands and the api? He replies “oh that’s a good idea. I just described them to the agent and thought you could review and fix mistakes”

So often the sources listed by an LLM are just reddit posts, so this will be an ouroboros pretty soon.

Eh, you always had to filter the chaff too before. Nowadays there's just a second group that replaced knowledge pulled from one's bottom with knowledge pulled from ChatGPT, if you weren't aware of the former group at least now you're forced to be on guard due to the latter.

> I guess untrained people with better tools are super dangerous.

It's hard to make something foolproof, because fools are so ingenious