this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
501 points (96.1% liked)
Facepalm
3298 readers
12 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess I don’t have a problem with this.
I struggle to write emails and would potentially use an LLM if that were an option. (Maybe.)
The message accepted the request, and was polite, showing concern, even. I assume it was proofread and deemed acceptable to the boss/reflective of their sentiments (although perhaps not copied well).
I guess I don’t see the offense here. Anyone who does see it care to explain why this is a negative?
Using an LLM is less of an issue than how it was used. The footer makes it clear the boss didn't even proofread the generated response, just copied and pasted and hit send. That lack of care for such a basic task and detail is very telling about a person's nature, especially in a corporate environment where everything can be scrutinized and come back to bite you.
Perhaps my understanding of how these are used is incorrect.
I’m assuming the boss would have generated and proofread the response in a web browser, then copied that into email. Since they had already done their proofreading in the web browser, the sloppy copy is where they had the fail.
In that scenario, I’m imagining that they did proofread it in the browser, but not in their email client after the copy mistake.
Hm. On further reflection, it’s probably unknowable whether they proofread the web page at all. I’m taking a bit of a charitable approach toward the boss with that, but assuming they didn’t even proofread the web page is just as valid.
Yeah exactly, I can't say whether they looked over it before or just did a bad job copying, but there was still an opportunity to fix it after that.
From my perspective, regardless of what goes into a work email, I'm giving it one last look over before I actually hit the send button