AI;DR (AI; Didn’t Read)
I'm about as pro-AI as you can be, but this is becoming a pet peeve of mine (and I'm not alone). That's why I love the AI;DR acronym as my new solution for ignoring the walls of slop.
I’m SUPER jealous that I didn’t think of this first...
Alas! Hat tip to seclilc for tweeting this gem out two days ago.
I’ve been thinking about it ever since. Why? Because there is growing grumbling among everyone about AI writing. And it’s not just others; it’s me! I am getting to the point where I physically flinch (sometimes dropping my shoulders and hunching, or having a slight eye twitch) when someone I respect sends me unfiltered and unedited AI output.
Look, I get it. It’s Q3 2026, and we should expect that everyone is utilizing AI at SOME point in their process (sourcing ideas, creating outlines, refining prose, etc.).
However, I have a new policy.
If you’re not bothered enough to review and edit it...
...then I’m not going to bother reading it.
Yes, there are certain situations in which we should expect 100% AI-generated copy. Customer support would be a perfect example. We’re not looking for artisanal “did you make sure to reset your phone” style dialogue.
But if you’re my colleague and we’re in a Slack discussion and you post a wall of Claude output, then I’m afraid I received a different message than you intended.
The same is true for people’s newsletters and social content. It’s your name on it; are you proud of the prose and weird AI-isms sprinkled throughout it? If so, great. But I can ask Claude directly if I wanted to.
TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) was the solution for social media.
AI;DR (AI; didn’t read) is the solution for AI slop.
May you embrace this policy yourself and seek out those willing to care enough to prioritize a human touch when they talk to you.
Thank you for voicing this!
Concur. I’ve been noticing a related phenomenon with AI: the gap between what someone can produce and what they actually understand is getting much wider.
Someone can now generate a very sophisticated-looking strategy, technical spec, or analysis in a few minutes. It uses all the right terminology, anticipates a bunch of edge cases, and sounds like it came from an expert. But the person sending it may not really understand the assumptions behind it, know which parts actually matter, or have any sense of how difficult it would be to execute.
I think of it as borrowed competence AI gives you access to the language and output of expertise without necessarily giving you the underlying mental model. And because the output looks smart, it’s easy to feel like the thinking behind it must be equally solid.
It also has a funny way of turning uncertainty into certainty. Someone starts with a vague thought like, “we should probably make sure we’re collecting the right data,” and AI turns that into a highly specific 15-point technical requirement. Suddenly all the hesitation and ambiguity that was present in the original thought is gone.
AI absolutely makes people more capable. But I think we’re going to have to get much better at separating the sophistication of the output from the sophistication of the person’s actual understanding of it.