The only workaround is to just text as-is and call it out when it's wrong/bad, AI-generated or otherwise, as we've done before 2023.
I think typically, the reason people are disclosing their usage of LLMs is that they want offload responsibility. To me it's important to see them taking responsibility for their words. You wouldn't blame Google for bad search results, would you? You can only blame the entity that you can actually influence.
Because if they'd actually read the output, then cross-checked it and developed some confidence in the opinion, they wouldn't put what they perceive as the most important part up front ("I used ChatGPT") - they'd put the conclusion.
Or, if you preface a comment with "I am not an expert, but...", it is not often about seeking to avoid all blame, but to simply give the reader reasonable context.
Of course, you are right, it is also sometimes just lazy dodging.
I find a good workaround is to just say "some very quick research of my own leads me to ...", and then summarize what ChatGPT said. Especially if you are using e.g. an LLM with search enabled, this is borderline almost literally true, but makes it clear you aren't just stating something completely on your own.
Of course, you should still actually verify the outputs. If you do, there is not much wrong with not mentioning using the LLM, since you've don't the most important thing anyway (not be lazy in your response). If you don't verify, you had better say that.
My experience is that the vast majority of people do 0 research (AI assisted or not) before asking questions online. Questions that could have usually been answered in a few seconds if they had tried.
If someone preface a question by saying they've done their research but would like validation, then yes it's in incredibly poor taste.
When you put it that way I guess it kind of is.
> If someone preface a question by saying they've done their research but would like validation, then yes it's in incredibly poor taste.
100% agree with you there
The "let me Google that for you" was more trying to get people to look up trivial things on their own, rather than query some forum repeatedly.
they're more clueless than condescending
That's not like pasting in a screenshot or a copy/paste of an AI answer, it's being intentionally dismissive. You weren't actually doing the "work" for them, you were calling them lazy.
The way I usually see the AI paste being used is from people trying to refute something somebody said, but about a subject that they don't know anything about.
Which was just as irritating.
No. With Google you get many answers. With AI you get one. Also we know that AI is unreliable with some possibility, it’s highly probable that you can get a better source on Google than that. This is especially bad when the question is something niche. So, it’s definitely a worse version of lmgtfy.
udm=14 my beloved
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Becomes
> That which can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought.
Since no current AI thinks but humans do I’m just going to dismiss anything an AI says out of hand because you are pushing the cost of parsing what it said onto me and off you and nah, ain’t accepting that.
Hell, Feynman said as much in 1985. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI
One of these courses of action is helpful, while the other one very much isn't. Copy-pasting 5 paragraphs of ChatGPT is equally not helpful. If however find one small blurb in that ChatGPT output that's germane to whatever point is being made, and copy and paste that, along with a source and/or your reasoning as to why that is correct, then you're probably back to being helpful again. This however is not what most instances of 'chatGPT said' are. Most of those are 'chatGPT said [insert word salad here]' or '[chatGPT said [thing obvious from even the most cursory knowledge about the subject at hand]'.
Whether the hatred is justified or not, the openness of said hostility just breeds users who'll hide their usage and deliver the same content, just repackaged enough in attempt to throw off the BS smell. And now you, the user, might be two paragraphs into something that may be truthful enough to fool you unless you're also an expert on the topic. I'd rather know up front what their source was and weigh the data with that in mind.
Otherwise we're now all going to have to assume everything we read is AI generated and suspect everyone else is going to look at our own content under such a microscope. Maybe that's a positive though.
I had a consultant I’m working with have an employee do that to me. I immediately insisted that every hour they’ve billed on that person’s name be refunded.
They removed the analyst from our project and credited the hours along with a bonus.
I start responding again when they can be bothered to formulate their own thoughts.
If a stupid LLM doesn't understand what something might be, chances are your user won't either.
This is not a problem I've run into fortunately, but I'm appalled that this exists.
ChatGPT is free and available to everyone, and so are a dozen other LLMs. If the person making the comment wanted to know what ChatGPT had to say, they could just ask it themselves. I guess people feel like they’re being helpful, but I just don’t get it.
Though with that said, I’m happy when they at least say it’s from an LLM. At least then I know I can ignore It. Worse is replying as if it’s their own answer, but really it’s just copy pasted from an LLM. Those are more insidious.