1. This work was largely optional to begin with. Few people actually need to post on LinkedIn, write blogs, etc. It's arguably a mountain of content waste (which is why the term "slop" is so fitting). Not only does it waste the producer's time to produce it, but it also wastes the reader's time to try to consume it.

2. It's not a substitute for actual work. If it becomes clear that you're using LLM to do work you are paid to do, eventually the person who pays you will notice, and replace you with the LLM. If your employer values you because of the work you do, it's in your best interest to do the job yourself.

In the book-publishing context, ghost writers have to be credited, even if the attribution is in small print.

Two reasons:

1. I can't effectively engage in follow-up conversation with the "author." I can't do it with the human (principal) because they didn't write it and can't explain it--and, in fact, they may not even personally agree with all if it!

2. It shifts the cognitive burden from writer to reader. What makes writing hard, and valuable, is the effort put into translating one's raw, unfiltered thoughts into writing that is easy to comprehend, and the writer's own unique personality that is expressed in it. As ambient prose, AI-generated writing is often not only more difficult to read than human-drafted prose, but it also has this "sameness" quality that makes every "author" have the same personality.

I'd like them to go further and delete links to AI-generated content, but I haven't been able to persuade management to do that yet.

I disagree with your characterization, but you do you, I guess.

> There are better things to be doing with your day.

Perhaps so. There are probably better things for everyone on HN to be doing instead. Nevertheless, as autonomous people, we can choose our own priorities. I, for one, don't appreciate being told how to spend my time.

> Have you ever tried to shame a narcissist, or someone with BPD? It definitely does not work on them.

To be sure, a punch in the mouth may be more effective.

You should see how long their surgery departments are backed up!

Secondly, the scale is WAY off and makes it look far worse than it is. It makes it look like 99.5% availability is practically zero availability.

Finally, GitHub’s availability is not a binary all-or-nothing proposition. They report incidents on a granular level, for example, webhook firing can be impaired while Git hosting may be working fine.

It's not all that different from, say, an AWS region having a service impact. People would rather complain about AWS than prepare and utilize a well-tested recovery plan to shift to a standby region. Oftentimes there's no fallback plan because the business already considered it and decided it was too costly relative to the benefit, but when the incident happens, they still can't help but complain. Humans being humans.

Social condemnation has always been used to help keep the behavior of a group within certain acceptable bounds. Whether it's as effective in today's world of ever-escalating attention-seeking competition as it once was is questionable, though.

> Getting worked up is exactly the goal.

I don’t know who you think is worked up here, but it’s not me. I was merely expressing what impression the author’s choice of words left on me. And clearly I wasn’t alone in that regard. You are the one who chose to attack me as “projecting.”

...

You are getting a lot of feedback that you are the one who is mistaken here. Have you considered digesting it instead of defensively escalating?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/3c/dd/2f3cddbe0d3b383ee6d3...