Comment by freehorse
12 hours ago
You took all this time to reformulate the question, add the relevant implicit context, and do back and forth BUT you did not have time to reformulate the answer to something human readable that YOU own and can take responsibility for? This does not make sense to me. Nobody said not to consult an llm while formulating an answer. But if you give an answer, own it. Don't throw slop grenades.
…yes?
The amount of text isn’t equal and the benefit is primarily that I can push the LLM into a basin you don’t know the keywords for — something that takes a few minutes to type a couple sentences and me scan the results to make sure they’re roughly on track. And much, much less time than me trying to (re)write a treatise on a topic.
Dropping you an LLM reply is the equivalent of dropping you a link and telling you to learn about the topic — and appropriate in roughly the same circumstances.
Why would I reformulate what Claude already explained in a way that I find satisfactory? Only to give you the impression that I came up with it myself?
> if you give an answer, own it. Don't throw slop grenades.
If I send you some text copied and pasted from Claude, it means that I have read it and I think it's worth for you reading it. In this sense I'm already owning it. The problem is not the pasted answer, it's your assumption that a Claude-generated text must be "slop" that I haven't read.
I would at least expect to share your own take on it, or what you think is interesting or important in sharing an answer. If I am sent an llm copypasta I have no idea of the amount of intentionality or the amount of effort is being put into this. I have been sent many times "I got this from claude, did not have time to look at it closely, maybe you find it interesting". No thanks, I can and probably already have tried with claude already (did not say exactly that). This is the kind of slop grenade that is basically noise, and when you slop grenading me without telling me what you think yourself I have no idea if it is worth my time reading it or not.
I feel like these things are pretty trivially obvious. When there is noise, you have to make sure your signal is not taken for noise, if we assume that your intention is to produce signal in the first place.