I’m Not Gonna Waste Time Debunking Crap on LinkedIn.
LinkedIn is full of absolute trash these days. Just flat out bullshit garbage. (Oh yeah, that – this post should probably come with a language disclaimer, because this stuff makes me mad.)
People wanna look impressive without actually putting in the work to gain real knowledge. They’re asking ChatGPT to write viral “expertise” knowledge posts for them, and they’re publishing this slop without so much as testing it.
I’m going to share an example that popped up on my feed, something LinkedIn thought I would find valuable to read:
It’s pretty. It looks like it was written by an authoritative source.
But if you drill just a little deeper, there are telltale giveaways that the author is a lazy asshole who wastes other peoples’ time. They didn’t bother to put the least bit of fact-checking in. I’m not even talking about the overall accuracy, mind you – let’s just look at the comparison table. On the left side, there are two sections marked “Efficiency”, and on the right side, two sections marked “Usage”:
That doesn’t make any sense. Then keep reading, and look at the bottom sections. On the left, they both say the same thing – but only one thing is checked:
Thankfully, the situation is much better on the right side, where, uh, both things are checked, so that’s also meaningless:
I hate this bullshit. I hate it. Haaaaate it. I work so hard to help debunk query myths and help you write better queries, and then some jerk-off like this slaps a prompt into ChatGPT, creates a pretty (but altogether full of crap) table, and it gets engagement on LinkedIn – thereby spreading misinformation all over again.
If you’re lucky, and the thought slop leader hasn’t tried to hide their source, at least LinkedIn puts a little “content credentials” icon at the top of AI-generated images. You can hover your mouse over it like this:
ChatGPT and Google Gemini are both labeling their images with hidden tags, helping sites like LinkedIn identify content that was AI-generated. However, ambitious authors can strip those tags out, trying to claim ownership of their content. (sigh) And they will, because they’re in a race to be the best slop leaders.
See, LinkedIn actually rewards bad content because commenters jump in to point out the inaccuracies, thereby making LinkedIn think the content was comment-worthy, and so it should be promoted to more viewers. Those viewers in turn don’t read the comments, and they just think the original post was merit-worthy – after all, it was recommended by LinkedIn – which spreads the misinformation further.
I love AI, and I use it every single day, but I hate the holy hell out of what’s happening right now.
So even though it drives me absolutely crazy to see this fake knowledge being passed off as truthful, I’m not gonna bother debunking it. These morons can create it faster than I can debunk it. I can’t even block these “authors” when I see them writing trash, because… they’re the very people who need to be reading my stuff! Sure, they’re slop leaders today, but tomorrow they may turn the corner and want to start actually learning SQL, and when they see the light, I wanna be there for them.
I’m just gonna keep offering you the best alternatives that I can: real-life, hands-on material that I’ve learned through decades of genuine hard work. Hopefully, you’ll continue to see my work as worthy, dear reader, and keep sharing the good stuff that you like, and keep investing in the training classes that I produce. Fingers crossed.
45 Comments. Leave new
I share your pain, Brent. And I guess I should also stop debunking the nonsense, as difficult as it is for me to leave such dangerous misinformation unchallenged.
I wish I were involved in hiring. If I had that role now, any allocation from a candidate who advertises their lack of critical thinking on LinkedIn would instantly go in the bin.
Your use of the term “slop leaders” makes me think of the adage “dont wrestle with pigs in the mud,” which youve clearly made the wise decision not too. i know Jeff Modem has taken up the torch of dealing with this and other disingenuous nonsense, but the sheer amount is making it a waste of time to your point. I also think your feelings are justified. it is bullshit.
Jeff Moden*
Hah, i didn’t spot the spelling error in the original comment. And now I wish his real lastname WAS “Modem” 🙂
It’s just a bunch of screechy noise when Jeff Modem and Baud Ward talk about Azure DB.
Heh… now that’s funny! Just don’t give up your day job quite yet, though. 😉
Thanks for the honorable mention, Douglas (and it’s “Moden”, not “Modem”.
It IS a losing battle over on LinkedIn but, I used to be a beginner a long time ago… I remember bandwagon riders and ring-knockers all passing on bum-dope. I got lucky seeing how bad they could make things then and then after (supposed “Best Practice” Index Maintenance is one of my favorite targets in many places).
My idea is that I’m fighting a losing battle but… if I can help even one newbie do better or an “oldie” keep their job or get a new one so they can survive, then I’m pretty happy… especially if they “Pass It Forward” in return.
AI has made it too simple for people to be… ummm… productive in the world of misinformation. To Brent’s point, there’s so many bad posts that it’s becoming difficult to spend the time to try to help fix things. I may have to quit doing such things.
Jeff, I did correct myself in another comment, this outlet doesnt allow for edits. Sorry about that!
I saw that. Thanks, Doug.
Jeff you’ve done yeoman’s work in fighting the propagation of AI slop and the poor use of AI in effective software development. Keep it up, we need more voices of reason like yourself.
Knowing the origin of that term, that’s a mighty high compliment, Kris. Thank you for your very kind words and observation.
I’m with you Jeff! It also doesn’t help that AI engines get reinforced with the crap because it’s so “popular” that it thinks it’s correct, leading to perpetuating the crap that AI puts out.
It’s funny that you bring that up, Aaron. I actually had one of the AI engines (I forget which one) offer that as a reason as to why the “consensus” is getting worse over time.
The good part about all of that is that it makes people, like all the folks on this thread, much more valuable. I should prompt one of the AI engines to “‘splain it a gin” and publish it in an article so that employers and recruiters get an understand of the phenomenon of “The Dumbing Down of the AI Consensus”.
What bothers me just as much is that there’s no evidence of the claims. Let’s see an execution plan and results.
We both know why there’s no evidence but that is why it’s an applicable standard from a source I have zero reason to trust.
That is always my standard response to this stuff
Which DBMS are you referring to?
What does the execution plan say?
The responses are usually deleted or ignored
The problem is that people trust AI, and it seems that it’s usually because they don’t know better. A while back I was given some PHP code and asked to install it on a WordPress site. It didn’t work. It was supposed to work in conjunction with a new plug-in that this person had installed, so I assumed they had gotten the code from a reliable source. I looked at the error log and discovered it was calling a function that WordPress couldn’t find. I did some Googling and was told that it was an undocumented WordPress function that was being taken advantage of. I thought maybe the function was out of scope at that point in time, and tried to figure out why. Then I finally asked the person that gave it to me where the code came from. ChatGPT. It had completely made up this function, and a Google search had actually backed it up. I had wasted an hour assuming the code should work. I ended up finding another way to get the functionality that had originally been requested, but I learned a valuable lesson. Not only should you never trust AI, but you should assume it played a part in everything unless/until proven otherwise.
This whole article made me giggle. Not just the ranting which was refreshing and appropriate, but also the checking of the boxes and layout of the examples. Yes to small datasets. yes again to small datasets. Clearly this post looked pretty and laid out in a way that could be believed, but again to your point – if you even look at it, clearly its garbage. I appreciate your comedic feedback and ongoing expertise in this changing landscape. You are a wonderful voice in an increasingly AI based non-voice world. Your experience is a breath of fresh air.
two words: Thank You
It’s not just that the LinkedIn author is lazy enough to use ChatGPT to create content, but they’re too lazy to proofread that content in the simplest way. The number of authors who seem to actively refuse to do a quick final scan with their Mk1 Eyeball before posting something astounds me. It just makes them look stupid.
“slop leader” — I’m stealing this lol
No worried Brent. You’ve earned your credits. I’ll keep following you until either of us retires.
No worries Brent. You’ve earned your credits. I’ll keep following you until either of us retires.
I feel your pain. You are 100% correct.
I got a 429 rate limit error message, the first time i clicked on this post lol, on my second try it was successful.
Thanks as always Brent
Interesting how people can be convinced so easily to “believe” (sigh, where are the cynics). Yes hard to resist disputing stuff but as you so aptly point out it shows up faster than can be corrected!
I get this type of stuff submitted to SQL Server Central and I’m constantly rejecting it. It’s made my life a bit more of a PIA.
I might be whacking some legitimate human-written stuff, but if it doesn’t look good early, I’m just getting rid of it.
I bet “AI machines” are now grouped together in a comedy club laughing at us humans.
OK, so I probably missed this – but where is a good source to get the real story to help me and devs code?
Click Training at the top of the site to start your journey. Cheers!
Thanks — I already have access to the training. I’m mainly looking for resources that I can ‘guide’ my devs to
I strongly second Brent’s comment about clicking the Training at the top of the site.
They also wrote “c.customer_id = o.custome_id”
Spelling errors grind my gears the most.
Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking! It is infuriating to read that crap. My brain is correcting their crap at every step. But then I think, why would I bother actually responding to their crap. It will just boost their visibility and readership, allowing more people to read their crap. And they clearly aren’t going to take constructive criticism on not posting more crap in the future, or they wouldn’t have posted that crap in the first place. We just have to wade through all the crap, and choose carefully which crap-storms we really want to battle.
The IN query doesn’t even have a FROM part ?
The duplicate labels are a nice touch. “Efficiency” twice on the left, “Usage” twice on the right — and both boxes checked on one side like it means something. It’s just too sloppy. They didn’t even read what ChatGPT handed them. Is that laziness or complete disregard for the audience? Both, probably.
And the algorithm rewarding it is just chef’s kiss. Wrong gets boosted. Right gets buried. Great system.
And Trevor, I agree completely! Blind trust is very costly. This type of bs is not helping AI mature as it needs to. >>The problem is that people trust AI, and it seems that it’s usually because they don’t know better.
You know, one issue lies with manager or other people like that who check ChatGPT and then will pressure you to do the crappy job faster.
“I need one month”.
“You have only 1 week”.
Then they expect you to trash all your principles and just make it work because ChatGPT regurgitated some non-sense.
Stick to your guns and get fired now or do the ChatGPT danse and get fired 6 months later?
I comment on those threads with the respective links by you, Erik Darling, etc. It helps others that may read these articles and be misled. It also forces me to reread the articles I am commenting with, so it’s worth it. I think that reposting the article with links that contain the correct information helps as well, so others can see where the inaccuracies are. I understand how this can also promote them, but logically, I see it as better promoting correct material for those trying to do their jobs correctly. I think that is more important than debunking these authors.
I think it is best to ignore these kind of crap posts as much as possible. At least, don’t feed the algorithms.
If you’re really in a good mood, contact the author to let him/her know in the neatest possible way that he/she is not doing any good.
Crazy.
We were expecting the AI to be used to create fake info about politics but now it’s taking every corner of our life.
At this rate even a language so simple like SQL could become something unknown like COBOL.
AI is such a powerful tool – on the positive, its the best time to be alive to learn anything and I’ve personally found AI to be extremely helpful in that (though only one tool in a box of many) it can also take out some of the mundane tasks so you don’t have to do them and can help you get started on planning a larger task, suggesting things you may not have considered.
Unfortunately, the downsides lists seems larger – people become self professed “experts” flooding the Internet with garbage or claiming they are some kind of AI messiah that can “help you use AI to earn 5k a month” some people have completely let AI replace their own thinking. The list turns downright bizarre – there are rumours (not sure if it has been confirmed so take with a pinch of salt) that an AI agent submitted a PR for an opensource project, the maintainer rejected it and the AI went into full internet rage mode and published a blog post decrying that maintainer
Strange times
When I come across this kind of AI-generated content on LinkedIn, I feel embarrassed on behalf of others.
So sorry you don’t have the guts to call out AI for the garbage it is.
HAHAHA, nicely done. (I thought about writing a response with ChatGPT, heh.)
Dear Brent. I can understand what you might be feeling like. I think actual people who can write actual stuff to help actual people (actual = non-AI) should just post their own stuff and get moving. The amount of crap on all Social Media (including LinkedIn, of course) is so high that all we will do is get angry and burn our peace.
[…] not even wrong in an interesting way. It’s idiot advice like you’d find on LinkedIn. I won’t even dignify […]
I guess this has been the case ever since AI was adopted.. people ask questions and take the AI generated *usually* crap information as good, without fact checking. Everywhere I look, on forums, or group chats there is definitely some guy asking a question and another answering with an AI response…
The internet is getting bloated and people are starting to find it more difficult to get accurate information
on another note, I have a different example, where the AI did a great job, but the human side failed :)))
https://imgur.com/a/SCISrxx