[citadel_melon]

I’m glad people will have to evaluate the substance of the deck rather than using a cheap heuristic like how visually appealing the presentation is.

I understand there tends to be a correlation between visual appeal and effort, and correlation between effort and merit, but correlation is notoriously flawed. Flawed models can be useful, but only if one qualifies their use sufficiently. I don’t think most people who used are using the aesthetics heuristic you mention to gauge merit are using it rigorously to sharpen their thinking, they’re using it as a shortcut to prevent themselves from needing to think.

An equally plausible scenario to that of which you mention is that technical people can make presentations that are similarly visually appealing as the non-technical people, and that their opinions will be valued more than before. Maybe this will happen, maybe this won’t happen, but I am certain that we do not know yet.

[doomkaiser21]

From Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design:

A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.

Presentation will always be important as long as humans are involved because we're biologically wired to be attracted to good-looking things. Now I do think that what we associate with "good" will violently change, as it always does (look at fashion).

My guess is that verbosity will be an immediate turnoff, em dashes another immediate turnoff, and we'll value ooga booga conciseness over all other aesthetics. We've already unknowingly begun to move in that direction with the minimalism trend.

[beardedwizard]

I really love this take. AI both increases and decimates the ability of people to BS you with fancy graphics and text.

[indemnity]

The apparent quality of our pull request messages and documentation is sky high (at least from a language and grammar perspective), but I do miss the days of hand crafted prose, it was easier to tell the low effort crap from the gold.