Most ai generated messages or docs are unnecessarily verbose and just reading the prompt would suffice. I don't really get why some people seem to think that it's somehow better to have their bullet point prompt as a huge text.
It just wastes my time. And probably only makes it look like it took more effort than it actually did (it may be the exact opposite).
Simple: It looks like you did more work.
Before everyone had ChatGPT, a long document meant that someone sat at their computer and invested more effort than someone rattling off a list of partially formed bullet points. In the process of writing the doc they usually refined the idea.
Now anyone can dump the bullet points into ChatGPT and get and expand them into a document which gives the illusion of being well thought out. They can now occupy the same space as everyone who was doing a lot of work in the past, but without having to do the work.
1. Find companies which require or reward employees for generating bullshit, fluff, or unreliable signals for actual work that isn't measured well.
2. Offer those employees convenient BS-as-a-Service.
3. Convince the corporation to subsidize the new bullshit-production method as a business expense.
I hope this results in the overloaded collapse of the underlying bullshit mechanics... but I don't particularly expect it.
5. Approach them to buy your convenient anti-BS-as-a-Service optimizer.
Rinse, repeat.
people that I like to be nice to have done this to me. I dont have a good response that wont trigger them.
They chose to do this cz its easy. I now have to choose : read that garbage and make sense and ask questions or reject it asking for your opinions not claude's.
Former leads to more walls of text. Latter makes me come across as not-nice and get broad stroke painted as an AI hater (which I'm not). Not many where I work will voice any of their discontent about anything AI. Its the hotness.
The irony of that article having an AI smell is not lost on me
I think you've hit on why people would do this in a work environment. It's a low-effort way of looking like they're engaged at work and know what they're talking about.
Probably people who have never wanted to put the required thinking effort in a simple, structured response to a question, and now think that "a lot of words" magically solves that skill issue.
I don't just mean the readers.
The generators of slop often think this is useful.
Things have changed.
Our intuition has not.
The question before is now is now is whether the letter contains any quotable quotes that have survived 400 years other than his critique of style.
hmm.. Wheel of Time? never got into those books personally
Because they want to mislead you.
In that case, there is nothing beneficial about the prompt, but the answer could be boiled down to a useful recommendation (from an AI, not a person).
If someone contributes a software component, they are responsible for it whether they developed it properly or slop coded. The difference is that I will refuse to look at the slop, much less debug it or help with troubleshooting.
People who blindly copy paste from agents are completely replaceable, and should be at the top of the list when layoff season hits. They drag the whole org down.