[mpalmer]

You can't be serious.

> When you publish something under the banner of open–source, you implicitly enter a stewardship role. You’re not just shipping files, you’re making a contribution to a shared commons. That carries certain responsibilities: clarity about purpose, honesty about limitations, and a basic alignment with the community’s collaborative ethos.

(from the second link)

You're not just writing angry screeds, you are producing slop prose and asking us to spend our time reading it.

How is this not an implicit repudiation of your entire argument? Are you not hurting yourself by avoiding learning how to write better?

[simonw]

I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. Not all "you're not X, you're Y" was written by an LLM.

[adrianmalacoda]

That assertion is also highly debatable. To me no part of releasing software under a free license implies a "stewardship role."

[happytoexplain]

I can't tell what you're referring to. The quote reads well.

[zahlman]

It invokes a couple of classic "LLM writing red flag" tropes. But they're ones that are reasonably appropriate in context.

I have caught myself on occasion rewriting to avoid looking too much like an LLM. But I've also introduced em-dashes to my writing — here's a gratuitous example just for fun — simply because the LLM slop writing discourse prompted me to research the X11 input system.