Using AI-Generated Replies Is Rude and Inefficient in Professional Settings
These days it’s tempting to treat a chatbot’s output as if it were a finished email or the perfect answer to a coworker’s question. The original title - “Your Friend Asked You a Question. Don’t Copy and Paste an Answer From a Chatbot” - already hints at a friction point that’s sneaking into our daily work.
The headline goes a step further, suggesting that leaning on AI-generated replies isn’t just lazy; it can feel downright rude. Sure, the model can spin out a tidy paragraph in seconds, but dropping that text straight into a professional conversation seems to skip the whole point of dialogue - the back-and-forth, the nuance, the personal responsibility. I’ve seen a few screenshots of GPT answers passed around instead of a real, thought-out reply, and it creates an odd kind of tension.
Filed under LLMs & Generative AI, the piece asks us to pause and wonder whether the ease of copy-pasting is really worth the hit to collegial respect and overall efficiency.
And its existence points to something new: how rude it is to, in response to a question, respond with AI output--especially in a more professional context. Wasting Time Telling someone to Google something can be funny and satisfying, but it's not helpful. I'd put copy-pasting or screenshotting a conversation with ChatGPT, Claude, or any other AI agent in the same category: not helpful and kind of rude. Developer Alex Martsinovich touched on this a while ago in a blog post called it's rude to show AI output to people: "Be polite, and don't send humans AI text," he writes.
Replying with a bot’s answer feels a bit off-beat, especially after the “Let Me Google That For You” site reminded us how lazy searching can look. That little gag now casts a shadow over a newer dilemma: AI-generated replies can come across just as dismissive. In the office, dropping a copy-paste of an AI output, or even a screenshot, might shave a minute off your day, but it usually means the person on the other end has to double-check or rewrite what they got.
The original point of the tool was to point out how easy self-service can be, so using it to dodge a real conversation probably looks rude. The article doesn’t hand us a tidy solution, and it’s unclear whether a short, human-written summary would hit the sweet spot between speed and politeness. It does suggest that leaning on AI without adding any personal touch could erode the collaborative vibe we rely on.
So, even when the shortcut is tempting, professionalism might call for a little more effort than a quick AI paste.
More in LLMs & Generative AI
OpenAI launches App Directory, accepts ChatGPT apps with privacy notices
OpenAI has opened the door for external creators to plug their tools straight into ChatGPT, rolling...
AI Model Scores Mensa Norway IQ 135, Surpassing Average Human Reasoning
The latest round of benchmark testing has put a spotlight on a new language model that cracked the...
Google pushes Gemini rollout to 2026, delays Android Assistant swap
Why does this matter now? For years, Android users have expected a smooth handoff from the familiar...
OpenAI now adds tone controls and streamlined email editing to ChatGPT
OpenAI just rolled out a set of tweaks that feel oddly personal for a chatbot. While the core model...
Google releases FunctionGemma, a tiny model for natural‑language mobile control
Here's the thing: mobile phones are the most common computing platform, yet most AI assistants...
Common Questions Answered
Why does the article consider copy‑pasting AI‑generated replies in professional emails rude?
The article argues that copying and pasting AI output bypasses personal effort and shows a lack of respect for the recipient, making the response feel dismissive. It frames this behavior as discourteous because it forces the reader to verify or rephrase the content, adding unnecessary friction.
How does the article link the "Let Me Google That For You" site to modern AI etiquette issues?
It draws a parallel between the site's purpose of exposing lazy searching and today's practice of sending AI‑generated answers without personal input. Both are portrayed as shortcuts that undermine helpful communication and can be perceived as snarky or rude.
What inefficiencies arise when a colleague receives a screenshot of a ChatGPT response instead of a tailored answer?
Receiving a screenshot requires the recipient to interpret, verify, and possibly rewrite the AI’s text, which consumes extra time. The article highlights that this extra verification step defeats the supposed time‑saving benefit of using large language models.
According to the article, what professional etiquette should replace simply sending AI‑generated output?
The article suggests that professionals should use AI as a drafting aid, then personalize and contextualize the response before sending. This approach respects the recipient’s time and maintains a courteous, collaborative tone in workplace communications.