It may not be laziness, but it is definitely entirely lacking in empathy.

Using AI reflexively assumes that you have a tool that they do not, or that they are not motivated or smart enough to use before coming to you. LMGTFY is directly a laziness-rebuff for this reason - everyone has and already uses google. Why would you assume that your coworkers are lazy or not smart as a first step in any interaction?

There are millions of reasons a genuine conversation should happen when a coworker reaches out, and many of these, if exercised in good faith, would be a trust-building interaction. LMGTFY and AI copypasta both are snide, cost-free rebuffs of a coworker who approached you with a question - and that's just shit culture if it becomes common.

I’m using ai to answer questions, but I instruct it in draft what answers to include, what info to include from my llm wiki (second brain). Saves time to write a correct response, can easily refer to past conversations, but definitely not 100% outsources to AI.

If you need to find information to answer a colleague, use AI if that's helpful.

I have no idea why anyone would let an AI dictate the response - you lose your entire voice and depersonalize your response. Do you keep a markdown of your communication style and past inside jokes? Or did you start so early with AI that you dont even have those to keep?

Because it’s often hard to find the right voice? because it’s often hard to describe something in the correct way? Communication is hard, finding the correct tone of voice often takes me a long time, so using AI makes me more efficient in a busy day?

That "hardness" is what brings value to the interaction, in almost every sense of value except "speed", and with AI, speed is suspect because of the investment imbalance - it's too easy to prompt for a response then fire that response and expect the reader to do the hard work.

I notice you didn't use an AI to debate this, just as I didn't use an AI to refute it. Does this make the interaction more or less meaningful for you? That you cared enough to actually read and reply, and I did, too? I didn't have too reply, nor did you, but we felt the need to exchange ideas together, not spawn agents to fight.

I don’t care who wrote it, as long as it is a good message, communicating what the sender intents to communicate, well articulated. I prefer it above a self written piece that is hard to understand, contains unclear wording, and could be interpreted in an incorrect way.

Not everyone is gifted with the ability to write well, so using tools to achieve that is no shame in my opinion. And no, practicing more is not always going to get you to a higher, sufficient level. We all have our limitations that cannot be crossed by just practicing more. Practice does not make Einstein.

I quite often send messages where I later think “i should have phrased it differently, maybe it was misunderstood”. And often I’ll respond way too late because lack of time.

I feel AI is a tool that helps me communicate better, and I expect that holds for many others as well.

Not understanding that some feel more effective using tools is also a sign of lack of empathy.

You're expressing your opinion, I'm expressing mine.

And you're leading me on a long goose chase here. We started with LMGTFY and are now debating whether some people can study to the point that they can reach AI levels of writing quality (absolutely yes they can, btw), and whether they need to because you, personally, would rather talk to an AI because you have in the past experienced anxiety about messages you have sent.

If you like using AI to communicate, just consider taking into account the various comments here and in above thread, from the people you likely work with or will work with, saying that using LLMs to craft messages for you is fraught with danger of coming off the wrong way and pushing your reader away.

I have nothing else really to say about it, this has been a really consistent thread.

> It should be considered common courtesy that when you ask a question you have at least attempted a bit of research to find the answer on your own.

In my professional experience. About 1 in 10 people does that. Maybe, 2 in 10.

In my line of work, its certain peoples' jobs to know certain things. If I need a piece of information that somebody else is responsible for understanding, I'm just going to ask directly for what I need instead of trying to research it myself. To research it myself would mean attempting to do somebody else's job, which is just unhelpful for everyone.

There is a line between "somebodies job to know" and you just being too lazy to look at the documentation/do basic research.

That experience is better characterized as unprofessional, then. ;)

The examples in the article are questions the AI did not know the answer to though. So hardly "basic beginner"