I am no Luddite. But I for one would appreciate full disclosure about who's written the content you shared with me: was it an #AI assistant, or you yourself?
Let's find some convention about that and develop a new etiquette. Maybe some keyword at the end, a meaningful glyph at the beginning?
I find those “warm” and “friendly” and “witty” messages creepy, fake and dishonest if it wasn't the (alleged) author choosing all the words themselves. Are you really “so excited” to talk to me, and “really impressed” by the material?
Think auto birthday congrats on social media, or pre-cooked new-role congrats on LinkedIn, only to the n-th power. It's sad.
Let's call it #AItiquette.
/human
OK, but that's an old problem. I'm not really concerned about humans exaggerating, flattering, trying to be funny, etc. We have tools to deal with that.
My concern is not even knowing whether there's a human on the other end, and letting some stupid software press our buttons.
It's deception. If I'm not funny or learned at all, but my (AI-generated) posts and messages project a much better image, I'm up for some painful reckoning (or I should be).
/human
@tripu Sure; but I think most of the "oh, you are so brilliant, you are a good fit for my client" recruiter mails are non-human. The human who copy pasted the script does not care about you or their client—besides doing what the client asked of them to provoke some financial transaction.
@tripu Human here. If someone claim that they are really impressed by your work, ask them exactly what impressed them. I find that sycophants rarely has an answer to that question.