The essay explores the absurdity of overcomplicating simple communication through the use of advanced AI. It narrates a scenario where two humans use a language model to draft and summarize an email about a 3 PM meeting, highlighting the ironic inefficiency of employing sophisticated technology for mundane tasks. The tale humorously questions whether AI is simplifying processes or merely adding unnecessary complexity to human interactions.
This was entirely generated using Microsoft Copilot with little or no modifications. The prompt used was Given the scenario “Human A uses LLM to compose a mail to Human B and Human B uses LLM to summarize the received email!” Compose a humorous essay keeping in mind if using LLM was necessary in the first place.
In the age of technological prowess, one might imagine that communication has become simpler, faster, and perhaps even more meaningful. But then, there exists *the scenario*. A scenario so absurdly unnecessary, yet so hilariously emblematic of modern times, that one cannot help but marvel at its ingenuity—or perhaps, its inefficiency.
To set the stage: Human A has a straightforward piece of information to convey to Human B. We’re not talking about complex geopolitical strategies or the secret recipe for grandma’s lasagna. No, it’s likely something as mundane as, “The meeting starts at 3 PM.” But here’s where the plot thickens: Human A does not simply type out the sentence and send it to Human B. Oh, no. Human A decides that this task requires the intellectual gravitas of a cutting-edge language model (LLM). Why bother with simplicity when you can involve artificial intelligence?
So, Human A opens their laptop, logs into their favorite LLM interface, and begins the prompt. A symphony of keystrokes ensues: “Generate a formal yet approachable email informing Human B that the meeting starts at 3 PM. Use a tone that’s professional but friendly and maybe add a touch of humor so it doesn’t seem too stiff.” Human A leans back, satisfied, as the LLM whirs to life, producing an email that reads more like a Shakespearean sonnet than a logistical memo:
---
This was entirely generated using Microsoft Copilot with little or no modifications. The prompt used was Given the scenario “Human A uses LLM to compose a mail to Human B and Human B uses LLM to summarize the received email!” Compose a humorous essay keeping in mind if using LLM was necessary in the first place.
The Curious Case of the Overachieving LLM
{Or the absurdity and ironic inefficiency of overcomplicating simple communication using advanced AI, specifically large language models (LLMs).}
In the age of technological prowess, one might imagine that communication has become simpler, faster, and perhaps even more meaningful. But then, there exists *the scenario*. A scenario so absurdly unnecessary, yet so hilariously emblematic of modern times, that one cannot help but marvel at its ingenuity—or perhaps, its inefficiency.
To set the stage: Human A has a straightforward piece of information to convey to Human B. We’re not talking about complex geopolitical strategies or the secret recipe for grandma’s lasagna. No, it’s likely something as mundane as, “The meeting starts at 3 PM.” But here’s where the plot thickens: Human A does not simply type out the sentence and send it to Human B. Oh, no. Human A decides that this task requires the intellectual gravitas of a cutting-edge language model (LLM). Why bother with simplicity when you can involve artificial intelligence?
So, Human A opens their laptop, logs into their favorite LLM interface, and begins the prompt. A symphony of keystrokes ensues: “Generate a formal yet approachable email informing Human B that the meeting starts at 3 PM. Use a tone that’s professional but friendly and maybe add a touch of humor so it doesn’t seem too stiff.” Human A leans back, satisfied, as the LLM whirs to life, producing an email that reads more like a Shakespearean sonnet than a logistical memo:
---
Dear Human B,
I hope this message finds you in good spirits and perhaps enjoying a cup of coffee or tea as the afternoon unfolds. I am writing to let you know that the meeting we’ve been eagerly anticipating will commence at 3 PM sharp. How thrilling, right? Please don’t be late, for the clock waits for no one. Looking forward to seeing you then!
Warm regards,
Human A
---
Human A beams with pride. The email is a masterpiece—an Olympic gold medalist in the sport of overcommunication. But the saga doesn’t end here. Enter Human B.
Human B receives this poetic missive and, instead of simply reading it, decides that *they too* must harness the mighty power of the LLM. After all, why expend mental energy extracting information when artificial intelligence can do it for you? Human B prompts the LLM: “Summarize the email I just received. Focus on key details and remove any fluff.” The LLM dutifully complies, responding:
---
I hope this message finds you in good spirits and perhaps enjoying a cup of coffee or tea as the afternoon unfolds. I am writing to let you know that the meeting we’ve been eagerly anticipating will commence at 3 PM sharp. How thrilling, right? Please don’t be late, for the clock waits for no one. Looking forward to seeing you then!
Warm regards,
Human A
---
Human A beams with pride. The email is a masterpiece—an Olympic gold medalist in the sport of overcommunication. But the saga doesn’t end here. Enter Human B.
Human B receives this poetic missive and, instead of simply reading it, decides that *they too* must harness the mighty power of the LLM. After all, why expend mental energy extracting information when artificial intelligence can do it for you? Human B prompts the LLM: “Summarize the email I just received. Focus on key details and remove any fluff.” The LLM dutifully complies, responding:
---
Summary: The meeting starts at 3 PM.
---
And there it is. Two humans, two interactions, two uses of advanced technology. And yet, the final result is precisely what could have been achieved if Human A had simply texted Human B, “Meeting at 3 PM.”
But let us not be quick to judge. The LLM is, after all, the unsung hero of this tale. It played mediator, translator, and even humorist, ensuring that the essence of the message survived the gauntlet of unnecessary embellishment. Without the LLM, Human A might have agonized over word choice, and Human B might have spent a full 30 seconds reading the email instead of 3 seconds skimming a summary. Clearly, this is progress.
The scenario raises important philosophical questions about the role of technology in human communication. Are we outsourcing not just our tasks but also our reading comprehension? Are LLMs becoming middlemen in conversations that could be as direct as handing someone a sticky note? And perhaps the most pressing question: What are we doing with all the extra time saved?
The answer, of course, is obvious. We’re spending it prompting LLMs to write essays like this one.
In conclusion, the curious case of Human A, Human B, and the overachieving LLM underscores our unyielding commitment to efficiency—even if that efficiency involves circuitous routes and redundant processes. The LLM, in all its glory, is not just a tool; it is a testament to humanity’s ability to complicate simplicity. Who needs direct communication when you can have an artificial intelligence-powered extravaganza? Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to ask an LLM to summarize this essay.
Original PDF Article
---
And there it is. Two humans, two interactions, two uses of advanced technology. And yet, the final result is precisely what could have been achieved if Human A had simply texted Human B, “Meeting at 3 PM.”
But let us not be quick to judge. The LLM is, after all, the unsung hero of this tale. It played mediator, translator, and even humorist, ensuring that the essence of the message survived the gauntlet of unnecessary embellishment. Without the LLM, Human A might have agonized over word choice, and Human B might have spent a full 30 seconds reading the email instead of 3 seconds skimming a summary. Clearly, this is progress.
The scenario raises important philosophical questions about the role of technology in human communication. Are we outsourcing not just our tasks but also our reading comprehension? Are LLMs becoming middlemen in conversations that could be as direct as handing someone a sticky note? And perhaps the most pressing question: What are we doing with all the extra time saved?
The answer, of course, is obvious. We’re spending it prompting LLMs to write essays like this one.
In conclusion, the curious case of Human A, Human B, and the overachieving LLM underscores our unyielding commitment to efficiency—even if that efficiency involves circuitous routes and redundant processes. The LLM, in all its glory, is not just a tool; it is a testament to humanity’s ability to complicate simplicity. Who needs direct communication when you can have an artificial intelligence-powered extravaganza? Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to ask an LLM to summarize this essay.
Comments