[techscruggs]

The post effectively communicated what it needed to. It seemed both written and structured in a way that was optimized for human consumption.

If they used AI to write this and that gave them more time to volunteer their time towards developing this fantastic piece of open source software, then this all seems like a good thing to me.

[sickcodebruh]

It is clearly not effectively communicated if the tool used to write it stamps its signature in such a way that it distracts from the great work they’re doing.

[nullstyle]

Its only distracts the distractable. Does anyone ever read product announcement blog posts like they were great literature? Ive always just skimmed, theyve always been throwaway writing to me. I’d rather the humans spend more time on the actual creative challenges in a project.

[F7F7F7]

tldr; continue to cede ground on the slippery slope.

did i get that right?

[nullstyle]

yep, and when the llms can pack flatware, stamp license plates or clean bedpans, I'll argue we shouldn't have humans doing that bullshit work either.

[satvikpendem]

Language is descriptivist not prescriptivist so yes, exactly.

[ashikns]

It is distracting you because part of your mental focus is on "is this AI".

[collingreen]

I love how quickly all AI pushback gets blown off as "skill issue". Even reading and taste now!

[sbarre]

All writing is open to interpretation by the reader.

Some people let punctuation or grammar mistakes ruin an entire text or post for them, because they choose to focus on those flaws, rather than looking past them and taking in the content itself.

"this was written/assisted by AI" is starting to feel like next-gen "this has spelling/grammar mistakes in it, therefore it is invalid".

[natpalmer1776]

First time I’ve seen this take, but man it rings true.

I remember having teachers in middle school who seemed draconic to me in their emphasis on proper grammar and punctuation, however as an adult I’m lucky to read an email that contains paragraphs, much less proper punctuation.

Times are changing, and it’s up to the individual to decide how they want to respond to it

[sbarre]

This doesn't even account for the fact that while the tech industry's dominant language is English, lots of people in our industry count English as a second (or third/fourth/etc) language, so they might use AI to help them write in English in an effort to be better understood by others.

To arbitrarily dismiss all AI-assisted writing shows a real lack of understanding of the possible reasons one might use it beyond the "lazy author" trope that everyone likes to throw out there.

[corpoposter]

I think the problem is that too many people use AI to write bullshit. Thus AI writing becomes a cue for bullshit.

For people who have internalized AI writing as a cue for bullshit, it is very difficult to read obvious AI writing without constantly being cue-ed that the thing they're reading is bullshit. Even if it's not.

[mewpmewp2]

The issue is that you can't trust that every word of the message was intentional due to how much Claude will usually add various levels of nonsense, some more obvious some less to your voice or requests. Considering how much Claude alters the meaning of what I want to communicate I wouldn't trust the accuracy of that output right.

And I use Claude a lot, 24/7, but not for things like that. And I appreciate how much it elevates my productivity, but not like this. It usually prioritizes or highlights the wrong things, it overfixates on one thing I said and adds random content there out of nowhere.

So then I can't tell what part of it is slop, how slop, and it becomes impossible to trust.

[J_Shelby_J]

LLMs literally are incapable of writing in the way humans are. Generating a string of tokens is a completely different task than composing prose be it fiction, documentation, or product releases. It would take an insane harness on the par of a complexity of a coding harness to write at the level of college graduate.

So when I see someone saying LLMs are suitable for this use I must assume that they don’t think what they are writing is worth the effort or they don’t understand how effective written communication works. Either way, I’m resentful of it in the way someone reviewing a slop PR is.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot this week after having fable try to write some design docs and it outputting 1k line docs which I had to manually rewrite to 200-300 lines. I should of just did it myself to start.

[satvikpendem]

Literally incapable? This is literally false, as you can easily fine tune models to write exactly like you if you so choose.

[yawaramin]

Then don't trust it. Don't read it. Don't use it. But I don't get this obsession with trying to police and control everyone's use of AI. Hint: you can't control everyone. They're going to do what they want whether you like it or not. The only thing you can do is move on.