To me, it is exactly the same as people who linked lmgtfy.com or responded RTFM. If you send me an LLM summary, I’m assuming you’re claiming that I’m the asshole for bothering you. If I am being lazy, I’ll take the hint. If I’m struggling to find a way to do the research myself, either because I’m not sure how to properly research it myself, or because LLMs have made the internet nigh-unusable, I’m gonna clock you as a tremendous asshole.
I think there’s an important nuance to lmgtfy or RTFM. These two were clearly identifiable as the kind of - sometimes snarky - min-effort response, and sometimes absolutely justified (e.g. if I googled the question of OP and the very first result correctly answers their question, which I have made the effort of checking myself).
For the slop responses however, the receiver has to invest sometimes considerable time into reading & processing it to even understand that it might be pure slop. And in doubt, as a reader we are left with the moral dilemma of potentially offending the writer by asking “Did you just send me LLM output?”
It is both harder to identify and it drives a wedge into online (and personal) relationships because it adds a layer of doubt or distrust. This slop shit is poison for internet friendships. Those tech bros all need to fuck off and use their money for a permanent coke trip straight until they become irrelevant. :/
It’s really not that hard to identify the soulless drivel output by an LLM in an email. Nobody writes like that, not even a passive agressive middle management psychopath.
The unsetbuiltin treats attempts to unset array
subscripts @ and * differently depending on whether
the array is indexed or associative, and differently
than in previous versions.
• Arithmetic commands ( ((...)) ) and the expressions
in an arithmetic for statement can be expanded more
than once.
• Expressions used as arguments to arithmetic
operators in the [[ conditional command can be
expanded more than once.
• The expressions in substring parameter brace
expansion can be expanded more than once.
• The expressions in the $((...)) word expansion can
be expanded more than once.
• Arithmetic expressions used as indexed array
subscripts can be expanded more than once.
• test -v, when given an argument of A[@], where A is
an existing associative array, will returntrueif
the array has any set elements. Bash-5.2 will look
for and report on a key named @.
• The ${parameter[:]=value} word expansion will return
value, before any variable-specific transformations
have been performed (e.g., converting to lowercase).
Bash-5.2 will return the final value assigned to the
variable.
• Parsing command substitutions will behave as if
extended globbing (see the description of the shoptbuiltin above) is enabled, so that parsing a command
substitution containing an extglob pattern (say, as
part of a shell function) will not fail. This
assumes the intent is to enable extglob before the
command is executed and word expansions are
performed. It will fail at word expansion time if
extglob hasn't been enabled by the time the command
is executed.```
It’s not meant as an actual manual. What you’re really supposed to do is comb through ad-ridden google results until you find that one 10 years old reddit thread where someone thanks a deleted comment for solving the issue you have.
until you find that one 10 years old reddit thread where someone thanks a deleted comment for solving the issue you have.
I wasn’t gonna upvote you, but that one made me chuckle. Also because I have posted many of those “deleted comments” and wiped my reddit profile as clean as I could before leaving years ago.
The only time it’s been kind of relevant in my dealings is the Arch wiki, because it really is a solid resource. However, sometimes my issue is a specific one and I need more than general information on a process. RTFM ruins communities when someone is looking for support. It’s just an entitled response to someone asking for help.
To me, it is exactly the same as people who linked lmgtfy.com or responded RTFM. If you send me an LLM summary, I’m assuming you’re claiming that I’m the asshole for bothering you. If I am being lazy, I’ll take the hint. If I’m struggling to find a way to do the research myself, either because I’m not sure how to properly research it myself, or because LLMs have made the internet nigh-unusable, I’m gonna clock you as a tremendous asshole.
I think there’s an important nuance to lmgtfy or RTFM. These two were clearly identifiable as the kind of - sometimes snarky - min-effort response, and sometimes absolutely justified (e.g. if I googled the question of OP and the very first result correctly answers their question, which I have made the effort of checking myself).
For the slop responses however, the receiver has to invest sometimes considerable time into reading & processing it to even understand that it might be pure slop. And in doubt, as a reader we are left with the moral dilemma of potentially offending the writer by asking “Did you just send me LLM output?”
It is both harder to identify and it drives a wedge into online (and personal) relationships because it adds a layer of doubt or distrust. This slop shit is poison for internet friendships. Those tech bros all need to fuck off and use their money for a permanent coke trip straight until they become irrelevant. :/
Oh yeah, I was thinking of people who link to llm output, like this: https://chatgpt.com/share/697e8957-9494-8010-beb9-eb90c4760518
Copy-pasting llm summaries is definitely worse.
It’s really not that hard to identify the soulless drivel output by an LLM in an email. Nobody writes like that, not even a passive agressive middle management psychopath.
Becomes harder in shorter messages though.
This one really sucked post 2001 or so when everything stopped coming with a fucking manual to read. What M and I supposed to R, guy?
Them: Read The Fucking Manual!
The Manual
The unset builtin treats attempts to unset array subscripts @ and * differently depending on whether the array is indexed or associative, and differently than in previous versions. • Arithmetic commands ( ((...)) ) and the expressions in an arithmetic for statement can be expanded more than once. • Expressions used as arguments to arithmetic operators in the [[ conditional command can be expanded more than once. • The expressions in substring parameter brace expansion can be expanded more than once. • The expressions in the $((...)) word expansion can be expanded more than once. • Arithmetic expressions used as indexed array subscripts can be expanded more than once. • test -v, when given an argument of A[@], where A is an existing associative array, will return true if the array has any set elements. Bash-5.2 will look for and report on a key named @. • The ${parameter[:]=value} word expansion will return value, before any variable-specific transformations have been performed (e.g., converting to lowercase). Bash-5.2 will return the final value assigned to the variable. • Parsing command substitutions will behave as if extended globbing (see the description of the shopt builtin above) is enabled, so that parsing a command substitution containing an extglob pattern (say, as part of a shell function) will not fail. This assumes the intent is to enable extglob before the command is executed and word expansions are performed. It will fail at word expansion time if extglob hasn't been enabled by the time the command is executed.```It’s not meant as an actual manual. What you’re really supposed to do is comb through ad-ridden google results until you find that one 10 years old reddit thread where someone thanks a deleted comment for solving the issue you have.
I wasn’t gonna upvote you, but that one made me chuckle. Also because I have posted many of those “deleted comments” and wiped my reddit profile as clean as I could before leaving years ago.
The only time it’s been kind of relevant in my dealings is the Arch wiki, because it really is a solid resource. However, sometimes my issue is a specific one and I need more than general information on a process. RTFM ruins communities when someone is looking for support. It’s just an entitled response to someone asking for help.