alt Hacker NewsSending an AI response communicates more than just the response itself:
1. "I'm not entirely sure, but this is what it says to save you some time."
2. "You didn't ask the question precisely because you are not an SME, but I reworded it using the jargon that would allow the AI to answer better and here is the response."
3. "This response is AI, but in general my other ones are not"
4. "I trust the AI's response in this scenario."
Replies
Sometimes people ask questions on HN off handedly while making some kind of argument where the questions can easily be answered by plugging them into a Google search box. And then I wonder why didn’t they just do that? Usually they don’t do it because it causes whatever argument they are making to implode quickly. I’m guessing they aren’t anti AI they just don’t want to know. It’s not even a “do you trust the AI or not” since the AI is just able to quickly find and present basic data. The fact that their question can be answered quickly and easily is what they find offensive.
At work I’ll use AI to answer colleague questions and then wonder why they just didn’t use it instead. It’s usually just a training issue, the answers are usually right enough to unblock them at least.
These are somewhat valid reasons, but I think most of us have seen the use of pasting AI responses that are simply a laziness of communicating.
If you're trying (1), it's easier to say "I don't know, maybe <available ai> can answer". It doesn't save any time to ask an AI that the other party is equally equipped to ask. It just saves the responder time from being genuinely helpful.
If you're (2), at least explain this (or include the prompt so it's self evident and a teaching moment). Of course, if you're a SME, maybe you also have the knowledge to just answer directly - see 4.
For (3), why reply at all: see 1.
For (4), saying this associates your own authority and knowledge, and is valuable, but the omission of such disclaimer makes it indistinguishable from 1.