Purpose: Explain why you should not copy and paste an AI answer when a friend asks you a question, and show what to do instead. This post expands on Justin Pot’s argument: people ask you because they want your judgment, not a forwarded chatbot transcript. It offers history, practical etiquette, verification steps, communication tactics, and ready-to-use wording you can adopt immediately.
History of Snark — and why it mattered
Back in the 2010s a site called Let Me Google That For You made snark a small art form. Users could send a link that played an animation of someone typing a Google query, ending with search results. The message was blunt: “You could have looked this up.” That’s a social jab, and sometimes you want to jab. If some stranger wastes hours on social feeds asking easily checked questions, a little public snark can be a reasonable boundary.
But there’s a difference between public pushback and private exchange. When a colleague, friend, or family member asks you something, they’re asking you. They wanted your perspective. They wanted your perspective. That phrase deserves repeating: they wanted your perspective. When you reply with a mocking link or an unvetted AI transcript, you register two things: their question was not worth your time, and you declined to add value beyond what a machine would.
Modern evolution: paste, send, and the etiquette problem
Fast-forward to 2025. Tools now exist to forward AI chat transcripts the same way the Let Me Google That For You site forwarded animations. Let Me ChatGPT That For You is the logical consequence. It’s clever, and it’s lazy. It signals: “I used a tool so I don’t have to think about this.” That’s rude in private and risky in professional settings.
Developer Alex Martsinovich framed a usable norm: only relay AI output if you adopt it as your own or if you have explicit consent from the receiver. That’s a useful rule because it forces you to do one of two things: own the info, or ask permission. Either way, it keeps human accountability in the loop.
Why people ask you specifically
Ask yourself: what do you offer that a chatbot does not? Context. Experience. Taste. Trade-offs. When a person asks you, they expect those things. They wanted your perspective. They want how you connect facts to consequences they care about. If they could do the same with a search bar, they would have. What did they expect when they asked you?
Answering with raw AI output ignores the social contract implied by the question. It also removes perspective and accountability. If the answer turns out wrong, who owns the mistake? If you didn’t vet it, you can still be blamed for passing it along. That’s not hypothetical — it happens in teams and in client work all the time.
The accuracy problem: hallucinations and weak sourcing
AI models are better, but they still confidently invent things. Even if the model is accurate most of the time, the occasional error can be costly. Dropping AI text into a conversation without verification converts a tentative machine output into your endorsement. If you don’t check sources, you risk spreading falsehoods.
When someone asks you something simple—“What time does the train leave?”—a quick check is fine. For bigger questions—medical, legal, financial, technical—people expect due diligence. If you rely on a model, say so and show how you verified the answer. Who provided the data? Where is the primary source? If you can’t say, don’t forward as fact.
Use tools, but show your work
AI is a powerful research assistant, if you use it right. Use it to draft, to point to primary sources, to summarize debates. But don’t stop there. Do what journalists and professionals do: follow the sources. Read the studies. Contact the experts where practical. Bring to the conversation what the machine can’t: your reading of the implications and your record of judgment.
A practical workflow: ask the model for an overview and a list of sources; open and read those sources yourself; then synthesize the facts into an answer that includes your take. That’s the minimum. It’s also an act of social reciprocity: you give time and attention because the asker gave you theirs.
Practical etiquette — what to do instead
Set a simple standard for personal and professional communication. Below are rules you can adopt immediately and share with your team.
- Don’t forward AI output as your own voice without editing. If you use it, say you used it and add your interpretation.
- If the question is casual and low-risk, answer quickly from your head. Your friend asked you for a reason; give them your take.
- If the question is high-risk, label machine-sourced content clearly and attach sources you checked yourself.
- When in doubt, ask permission: “Do you want a quick summary or a sourced explanation?” That small question saves a lot of later correction.
Words that work — scripts you can use
Here are short replies you can copy and adapt. They set expectations and keep you honest.
Quick, low-stakes: “I’d answer this like this: [your short answer]. If you want more detail I can pull sources.”
When you used AI as a starting point: “I ran this past an AI to gather sources. Here’s the summary and what I think: [your take]. I read the two studies below before I wrote this.”
When you need to set a boundary: “No — I won’t paste an AI response. I can either give my take now or dig into sources and get back to you.”
The short “No” is powerful. It preserves your time and invites a choice. It’s a Voss move: say No to gain control, then follow with calibrated questions that open the conversation. For example: “No — I won’t paste AI output. What do you need this for?”
Negotiation and communication tactics to apply
If you want better back-and-forth, use simple negotiation techniques. Ask open-ended questions. Mirror key phrases. Create empathy. Don’t cede the conversation by hiding behind automation.
- Open-ended questions: “What outcome do you want from this answer?” That invites them to define success instead of you guessing.
- Mirroring: repeat a short phrase they used (“you’re worried about reliability?”). That small echo builds connection and often gets them to expand.
- Labeling: name the emotion or concern (“Sounds like you’re overwhelmed by conflicting advice.”). That calms and clarifies.
- Use silence: pause after you ask a question. Let them fill the gap. This is where real needs surface.
These moves make your answers matter more. They also reduce needless copy-paste behavior. If you ask, mirror, and label, you’ll find you don’t need to hide behind a machine. Your reply becomes the useful thing people asked for.
For professionals: due diligence and reputation costs
In workplaces, pasting AI output into emails or client communication without vetting is a reputational risk. Clients expect you to certify data and reasoning. Editors expect verification. Managers expect accountability. If you forward an unverified model answer and it fails, you’ll pay in trust.
Make a policy: AI output is permitted only if labeled and verified. That’s commitment and consistency in action. It signals to colleagues and clients that you value accuracy over convenience. Social proof helps here: cite peers, media ethics posts, or industry statements that recommend verification. People follow standards they see others keeping.
Psychology: why people keep pasting anyway
Two things drive the habit: speed and cognitive laziness. A pasted AI response is fast. It feels useful. It also removes responsibility. That temptation is understandable—everyone wants shortcuts. That does not excuse the choice. Admit the temptation. You’re allowed to fail at resisting it. Then commit to a better default.
Use small friction to stop bad habits: add a one-line rule in your messaging app or email signature: “I don’t send raw AI transcripts.” Social proof will help others match your standard. Reciprocity kicks in when you consistently give thoughtful replies — people will return the favor.
How to repair a pasted-AI mistake
If you already sent a raw AI answer, fix it fast. Say what happened, correct errors, and add sources. Example: “I made a mistake. I forwarded an AI reply without checking. Here are the correct sources and my summary.” Owning the error rebuilds trust. Confirming a suspicion—that you used AI without checking—hurts short-term but pays long-term.
Closing: change your default, protect your signal
The goal is simple: treat human questions as invitations to add value, not as opportunities to delegate. When someone asks you, give them what only you can give: judgment, context, and a clear view of trade-offs. Use AI as an assistant, not as a shortcut for human connection.
Will you try one small change this week? Mirror the phrase “they wanted your perspective” when you answer the next time someone asks. Then ask: “What are you hoping to do with this answer?” That pair — mirror, then open question — flips the exchange from lazy to useful. It also makes you look like the person they asked in the first place.
#AIEtiquette #HumanAnswer #DontPaste #ProfessionalEthics #ResearchResponsibly #CommunicationTactics
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Christina @ wocintechchat.com (LQ1t-8Ms5PY)
