A post at orchidfiles.com documents a pattern worth thinking about: people using AI as an intermediary in responses, forwarding generated content without critical review. For engineering teams that rely on technical exchanges in forums, code reviews, and support tickets, this has practical implications.
What the post documents
The author describes three concrete situations.
First, while looking for help with malicious GitHub repositories, they found the same AI-generated response copied verbatim across multiple discussion threads. No one had apparently read what they were posting.
Second, a client answered technical questions by forwarding ChatGPT screenshots. The content had no clear connection to the original question. The same behavior repeated in the same conversation, without the client reviewing what they were sending.
Third, after several exchanges on Reddit, the author realized they had been talking to an AI agent, not a person.
The post's core observation:
"I'm tired of talking to AI. I want to talk to real people. But even when I talk to people, they forward my questions to AI and send me the AI's answer."
— orchidfiles.com
The issue isn't AI use itself. It's the absence of critical review before passing along the output.
Why this matters in technical contexts
In engineering environments, technical exchanges carry more weight than casual conversation. An incorrect response in an internal forum can influence architectural decisions. An unreviewed response in a support ticket can send someone down hours of debugging based on a wrong premise. A copied response in a code review can pass through multiple reviewers without anyone questioning its source.
The problem compounds because AI output often looks well-formed. Surface-level writing quality is not a signal of technical correctness, but it can be read that way by whoever receives the response.
What engineering teams can establish
The question isn't whether to use AI tools, but whether to establish review practices before forwarding outputs.
Some practices worth considering:
- Review generated content before sharing, especially in technical channels where the response may influence decisions
- Indicate when a response was AI-generated or AI-assisted, so the recipient can calibrate appropriately
- Treat AI outputs as drafts that need review, not ready-to-send answers
These norms don't need to be formal or bureaucratic. A brief team alignment on how to use AI tools in technical exchanges can be enough to shift the pattern.
It is worth looking at which channels this pattern already appears in: internal forums, code reviews, tickets, client conversations. How aware is your team of this, and what makes sense to address?
Fonte: I'm Tired of Talking to AI
Top comments (0)