If we know ‘where it came from’ in the sense that the author couldn’t even bother writing anything themselves, why should other people bother reading this deluge of nonsensical strung together words?
back
1 comments
That's my point, we won't bother reading it. We'll let agents read it. People will eventually stop getting ticked off at this stuff.
One exception: if the model is poor or on 'low' and that leads to a crappy report. That's the equivalent of shipping performance-critical code built with -O0 in the compiler analogy.
This is a crappy report, that's what is being discussed
Is there any indication that it was a mini/fast/older model, or on a low effort level? My read of the reactions above is "ugh AI", not "ugh AI on the cheap". Not a single poster mentioned model or effort choice. It seems more like the usual irritation at "AI slop".
If you just mean that the result was technically incorrect or off, that's probably true, but it doesn't affect my argument.
At work I am sitting on a small pile of incomplete/wrong/missing-the-point bug reports right now, all generated by Opus 5 on High effort. Even under good conditions, LLMs are still wrong quite a lot, and confidently so. I can see why you think instant dismissal of LLM generated work is shallow, but I think it's at least as shortsighted to assume that when it creates poor quality work it must be an old/cheap model, bad settings, bad prompting, etc.
I'm not arguing that it's great. I'm arguing that the future of human work in this area will be limited to dealing with the cases when it isn't great, i.e. the pile on your desk. Choosing the best model and highest effort is the due diligence required to minimize the size of that pile.