I agree that between humans the example given is laziness and disrespect.

That said, I want to make it clear that if people are going to regurgitate LLM results either way, I'd rather get the longer slop than trust a concise "Use Redis" conclusion from a system that doesn't think the way we wish/assume it does.

Ultimately we're using a statistical language algorithm to predict what kinds of words usually come next in a short story we've constructed.

* If you train it for short outputs (or stories where a fictional computer character has short dialogue) you're prioritizing text from places where someone answered without explaining.

* If you run its output through a hidden "summarize yourself" path, you're adding additional potential for error and dropping details you could have used to detect it.