Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gdiamos 91 days ago
I personally don't mind letting Claude write about work.

You could spend 80% doing the work and 20% writing about it, or 99% doing the work and 1% copy-pasting Claude's writeup about it into a blog.

There is nothing wrong with writing if you are into it, and yes you can probably do better than Claude, but I can related to engineers who just want to build.

3 comments

If you can’t be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?
Because it contains information of value to you ? I mean if it doesn’t, just don’t read it.
To quote another HN comment recently made:

> Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time.

However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a written message than to read it. Reading it now takes more effort. If a person is not going to take the time to express messages based on their own thoughts, then they do not have sufficient respect for the reader, and their comments can be dismissed for that reason.

So to a large extent I appreciate that argument, however I feel this applied more to throwaway comments or sales outreach, writing with low information density. In this occasion the work that went into it is a lot, it would be lost or inaccessible to me otherwise, I am genuinely grateful someone stuck their work in an LLM, said tidy this up to post, and hit enter.
I could spend 100% doing the work with my own Claude, and 0% reading yours. That's a negative-sum outcome. I do think that the 80%/20% split is better (though anything that is mostly human voice is fine for me).
Because the failures are so frequent and often load-bearing that it makes it a negative sum to even attempt to read stuff that appears generated.