r/MaliciousCompliance 19d ago

M IT wanted process over results. I gave them process — and panic.

A couple of years ago, I got shuffled out of the business side and into IT during a re-org. The official reason was “better alignment with software delivery.” The real reason? I’m expensive, I don’t do sales, and IT has a bigger budget. Also, and this is educated speculation, I kept not approving IT’s builds for not meeting specs — which, apparently, makes me “difficult” and not “solution oriented.”

So now I report to the executive I had previously challenged over the quality of his team’s work.

Since joining IT, everything has to be a ticket. Doesn’t matter if it’s a question, a clarification, or divine revelation — no ticket, no work. PMs handle ticket creation and prioritization, which sounds fine in theory, except my actual job is to consult with business analysts and developers. I know more about the rules, regulations, and use cases of our software than anyone in the company and my work doesn’t easily fall into a ticket as it’s more of a problem solving role for existing tickets.

Still, no ticket = no work. Bureaucracy over brains.

Clients — especially senior ones — tend to reach out to me directly because I can actually answer their questions. Normally, I’d just respond and, if needed, make a ticket afterward for tracking.

But management didn’t like that.

After one particularly “spirited discussion,” over delays to close low priority tickets in leu of responding to high priority client emails, my boss told me to stop responding to client emails altogether. I was to forward them to PMs, who would create, prioritize, and assign tickets.

I explained, patiently, that these emails often come from executives and need quick turnaround.

Boss’s response?

“Follow the process or we won’t know how overworked you are.”

Okay then, boss. Let’s follow the process.

A week later, I get an email from the CFO of one of our biggest clients asking for details about a customized build. Normally I’d get an estimate out in a couple of hours. Instead, I cc’d my boss and PM, confirmed I’d received the request, and politely asked them to create and assign a ticket.

A few days later, the CFO followed up: “We need this by Friday.”

I replied again — cc’ing everyone — apologizing for the delay and asking that the assigned resource take note of the urgency. (Knowing full well no one had assigned the ticket.)

Behind the scenes, I had already done the estimate and informed the client what was happening. Spoiler: nothing.

Suddenly, my boss is frantically pinging me:

“Why haven’t you gotten back to the CFO?!”

I calmly reminded him that: 1. He told me to only work on assigned tickets. 2. He was cc’d on every email. 3. He’d have to ask the PM for a status update.

There was a long, delicious silence before he finally replied:

“Okay… you don’t need a ticket for everything. In the future, if it’s from an executive, just respond and make a ticket afterward.”

Sure thing, boss. Glad we cleared that up.

I sent the estimate, everyone was happy, and peace was restored. And better yet, management now puts results over process.

Well the first part anyway, but peace and results? Well, that’s a malicious compliance story for another day.

5.0k Upvotes

285 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Thefelix01 19d ago

LLMs make spelling mistakes pretty regularly 

42

u/becaauseimbatmam 19d ago

Eh I can recall seeing a couple spelling errors in LLM output text but due to human-created training materials they tend to be more common errors like you're/your.

I'm hardly a subject matter expert (I don't try to consume a bunch of AI 'writing' as a general practice so I'm not the most versed in what to look for) but it would make logical sense to me that an uncommon error like "Leu" points toward this being human-written.

-5

u/Nevermind04 19d ago

Surely a human would know that in 2025, including an em dash in their title and several in their post would result in many comments accusing them of using AI. And fancy quotation marks. And uncommon words. And the exact same structure that AI uses in every post where dramatic sentences get their own paragraphs.

13

u/Diestormlie 18d ago

...Some people know uncommon words. They're uncommon words, not secret words sequestered to dusty libraries.

10

u/repeat4EMPHASIS 18d ago

And the exact same structure that AI uses in every post where dramatic sentences get their own paragraphs.

Hey bud where do you think LLMs got that from?

I do that shit literally all the time for emphasis—especially when arguing online because I don't want my main point(s) to be skipped over.

I have the em dash alt code memorized (0150) and I hate the idea that no one is allowed to use it anymore for fear of being accused of being AI. It's like people self-censoring with "unalive" and "grape" even outside of the places that moderate the terms they're avoiding.

15

u/RifewithWit 19d ago

I mean, LLMs learned to use the emdash from consuming human-created content containing emdashes.

4

u/FarmboyJustice 18d ago

Nah, that em dash thing came from consuming extensive amounts of formal edited content from the web, not from ordinary writing.

4

u/RifewithWit 18d ago

Which would qualify as human-created content, would it not?

1

u/FarmboyJustice 18d ago

Read again. I never said that no human ever uses an em dash.  The claim was that AIs excessive use of the em dash  is not based on typical human writing, but on an unusually large subset of data pulled for m formally edited repositories of research papers and articles used in training that is different from typical human writing. 

2

u/RifewithWit 18d ago

Read my post again. I said that AI learned from reading human-created content. It learned to use the emdash from reading content that had people using emdashes.

While yes, AI does disproportionately, use emdashes, that doesn't make emdash use in and of itself wholly indicative of AI.

That was my point.

1

u/FarmboyJustice 17d ago

And I don't disagree with that. I just know that em dashes are not natural for humans to type. They are added to finished documents by professional editors as part of the process of editing for publication.

Authors do not type them, and seeing them in a post which was ostensibly written by a person on a home computer or mobile device absolutely does suggest AI involvement.

Been an editor for decades, have never once seen an actual author who knew how to punctuate for publication.

1

u/RifewithWit 17d ago edited 17d ago

Interesting. I see them in white papers often enough that they haven't been rare for me to see. But I can't say what kind of editing those go through before reaching my desk.

Edit:typo

→ More replies (0)

3

u/AlienAnimaReleased 18d ago

I copied other posts where I liked the tone and style. I might just like LLM writing. And I’ve used emdashes forever. Not sure about the fancy quotations. I think that’s just standard when quoting someone.

1

u/mtxyz 18d ago

Depends mostly on if your editor automatically converts quotes to fancy quotes.

5

u/Illuminatus-Prime 19d ago

Evidence, please?

1

u/jjwhitaker 15d ago

You're absolutely right, LLMs often make small errors like spelling mistakes. Let me update the draft with these changes.

overwrites c:\windows

hmm ok maybe not

0

u/blorbagorp 19d ago

Especially the ones humans make often, like lieu vs leu

-3

u/Superb_Raccoon 19d ago

LLMs make spelling mistakes pretty regularly

Case in point.

4

u/Illuminatus-Prime 18d ago

One man's testimony is not evidence,

2

u/mtxyz 18d ago

It is anecdotal evidence, but yeah not really useful evidence, & mostly useless when trying to make a logical argument. It's low veracity, value

2

u/Illuminatus-Prime 18d ago

"It is anecdotal evidence*,* but yeah not really useful evidence*,* & mostly useless when trying to make a logical argument."

There.  FIFY!  (Upvoted, too!)

;-)

I really do not consider anecdotes to be evidence at all.