jrmg
This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant
tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form
of engagement bait?...)The argument that communicating an
idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels
counterintuitive, but it's really true.Whether it's
debugging, 'big' writing, or even down to the scale of a
tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I've often had the
experience of starting to explain a process or opinion and
only then discovering that it's inconsistent or even
indefensible.I suspect (I hope!) that this is something
everyone can empathize with.
|
> nelsonfigueroa
The author doesn't come across as arrogant to me, more
like frustrated. The tone is certainly not for
everyone but I enjoyed it. And I agree that it's a
good essay!
|
> sig-11
I could not get past "waste of biomass".
|
> > inigyou
He is correct though. If you are a proxy to Claude
what is the use of yourself?
|
> altmanaltman
Yeah I don't know. I mean the author says only smart
people can write good. And then says anyone who uses
AI to write is basically giving up their genetalia so
that Anthropic's AI model could make love to your wife
(apparently without her consent because you can
obviously just decide who has sex with your wife).The
author should learn how to write properly and
communicate ideas in a less sexist and disgusting way
if he wants to make a point about writing well.The
blog post has terrible writing sorry.
|
> > kubanczyk
> you can obviously just decide who has sex with
your wifeThat's your fantasies, not author's. He
merely implied that one can obviously decide whom
to allow to fuck one's wife. He hasn't implied
that wife's consent is unnecessary or automatic.
|
> zetalyrae
> This is a very good essay when you get past the
arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is
that a form of engagement bait?...)We have reached the
point where you have college professors who defend[0]
using AI to write scientific papers (in a seemingly
AI-written tweet). Everywhere I go online, I see spam
written with the exact same voice. Scientific journals
and literary magazines are inundated with AI-written
submissions. Software projects have shut contributions
because maintainers are tired of reading AI-written
slop pull requests.What's the right tone to take here?
"Please stop defecting"? "I wish you would kindly stop
ruining the commons"? I don't know. Maybe, if we raise
the reputational cost of slop, we get less of it.[0]:
https://x.com/harryjwang/status/2062710375884148945
|
> > jrmg
Perhaps I meant 'crude' rather than 'arrogant'. Or
another word that a blend of the two.I mean, I
think there's a middle ground between defending
all uses of AI writing and saying "It's like
making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck
your wife."Edit: or "if you use AI to write, you
are a waste of biomass"
|
Animats
> Anyone can imagine a programing language that is as fast
as C and as dynamic as Lisp, but when you sit down and
think through what those goals entail, you realize the
design becomes contradictory.Ignoring the usual LLM rant,
that's an interesting observation. Those conflicting goals
reflect a problem that comes up quite often - the conflict
between efficient volume production and flexibility. It's
solvable for programming languages. That's what
just-in-time compilers are for. Anything can change, but
in practice, most things don't change that often. It's a
caching problem.This hits much harder in manufacturing. An
extreme case is what was once called "Detroit automation"
- totally specialized lines of machine tools that could
make V8 auto engines all day and all night with very
little human attention. But that's all they could make.
Even switching to a V6 or a different cylinder size
required new equipment. The other extreme is 3D printing
in metal. It works, but it's so slow it's only useful for
high-value items. Space-X makes Raptor engines that way.
Nobody makes auto engine blocks that way.A decade ago,
there was a huge enthusiasm for 3D printing for making
everything. That's declined. It's become another machine
in the machine shop. It works, but if you want to bang out
thousands of something, injection molding or stamping is
far faster. There's a sizable tooling cost, and then each
item is cheap. This is the tradeoff between efficiency and
dynamics.A year or two ago, someone posted a link on HN to
a video of someone making a small screw on a lathe. Nobody
does that except out of desperate need for a non-standard
part. Small screws are made by special purpose machines
that bang them out at machine-gun speeds. American culture
does not know this any more. Too few Americans today have
been inside manufacturing plants. The culture has
forgotten where stuff comes from.
|
> bxk76
As the buddhists have pointed out for thousands of
years nothing is permanent. Attachment to things that
are ever changing is the path to suffering.
|
> inigyou
The language implementation that is faster than (!) C
and almost as flexible as Lisp is called LuaJIT. I
think it's no longer maintained.* JITs can be faster
than C by specialising at runtime on runtime-knowable
values such as the length of the input or the tag of a
tagged union.
|
Foxhuls
This just seems weirdly similar to Plato's comments on
writing:"And so it is that you by reason of your tender
regard for the writing that is your offspring have
declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men
learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls.
They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on
that which is written, calling things to remembrance no
longer from within themselves, but by means of external
marks.What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory,
but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer
your disciples, but only the semblance of wisdom, for by
telling them of many things without teaching them you will
make them seem to know much while for the most part they
know nothing. And as men filled not with wisdom but with
the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to their
fellows."Maybe it simply comes down to how things get used
and people are trying to figure out how to use this
strange new tool that's available to us.
|
> zetalyrae
But writing, calculators, search engines etc. are
specific tools, you drop a skill to gain effectiveness
in another. While AI is a general tool whose builders
intend it to be able to perform all cognitive work.
Past a certain point, what is left of the human?
|
> > NewsaHackO
I do not agree that the concept of writing can be
considered a specific tool at all. Maybe a pencil,
but writing opposed to remembering everything is a
more substantial level of a paradigm shift than AI
use is.
|
conradludgate
> I take this to mean they threw a bunch of incoherent
bullet points at the AI for it to denoise and render into
paragraphsWhat I generally tend to do is have a long
conversation with an LLM for at least 30 minutes, and then
have that turn into the first draft. It might be
considered lazy, but I've never been very good at editing
prose - I always end up making a mistake that makes it
more confusing.If after the conversation I find it's an
idea worth sharing (usually with colleagues), then getting
the LLM to turn it into something readable is the best
option available to me. If I had to do it myself, it
likely wouldn't make it before I move onto something else.
And it has had my genuine input throughout the long
conversation, I wouldn't call it incoherent nor am I an
idiot for not being able to express myself in long form
writing
|
hackboyfly
I feel that the author mistakes intelligence with mental
energy.Even if you are smart you still have to budget your
mental energy and one way to do that is to delegate tasks
to AI.Some people might hate writing documentation but
love to write code and vice versa.Delegating things you
don't want to spend time on is ok in my book.That's why
the analogy "might as well let Claude hump your wife" does
not hold, unless you really don't enjoy that process.
|
SeriousM
> A "thinker" who doesn't write, who skips the step of
"merely" synthesizing their vague thoughts into prose, is
not thinking. And then these people give their noise to
the AI.OP is quite good with words and has a high standard
and world view. The reason why people use AI to manifest
their ideas is probably because they have no other way
communicate otherwise.It's a medium to pack the idea into
"something" that represents the idea. It was never about a
finished and polished product.
It's the sign language for deaf people - a way to show
your thoughts.I'm certain that the people presenting their
github repo do put quite some effort (= prompt work) into
it, which IS the thinking process.
At the end of the day, most developers are introverts that
can think very well but have hard times with soft
skills.Everyone wants to be proud of his work, let us
don't blame them how the show it off.
|
> zetalyrae
> The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas
is probably because they have no other way communicate
otherwise.Isn't this a bit circular? They're not
communicating to the AI through a BCI.
|
> jrmg
The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas
is probably because they have no other way communicate
otherwise.What?! This is nonsense. You're really
making the argument that most people getting LLMs to
write for them just couldn't communicate in any way
five years ago?
|
> > recursive-call
The five-years-ago internet was certainly full of
incoherently expressed ideas (and still is now).
For some people AI is just spellcheck on the
sentence/paragraph level.
|
> > > ekelsen
As a reader, I appreciate reading writing that
lacks large amounts of spelling mistakes.
Everyone agreeing on spelling seems like a
useful monoculture, like driving on the same
side of the road.But I don't feel the same way
about AI writing. It feels totally different
in a way that good spelling does not.Even if I
liked the style, I would object strongly to
that style quickly becoming a
monoculture.We're on a path to a style
optimized for shallow attention maximization
becoming the majority of text we read.
|
> _dain_
>It's a medium to pack the idea into "something" that
represents the idea. It was never about a finished and
polished product. It's the sign language for deaf
people - a way to show your thoughts.Sign language is
a fully fledged language, as capable of expressing
deep and complex thoughts as spoken English. Likening
it to some kind of prosthetic for second-rate thinkers
is insulting.
|
cadamsdotcom
> ... I feel contempt for the author, because if you use
AI to write, you are a waste of biomass. Let's not mince
words here. Someone who is so eager to replace themselves,
that they would have a machine write in their stead, when
the machine can't even write good yet: what do you call
that, if not contemptible? It's like making yourself into
a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife.Unfortunately due to
how tasteless this passage was, I won't be reading this or
your future writing.
|
> NateEag
I agree that it was a rude, tasteless metaphor.Alas,
for rude, tasteless behavior, such as replacing your
own authentic self-expression with the mellifluous
spew of verbal diarrhea that bullshit machines slather
across all surfaces they touch, rude, tasteless
metaphors are the only fitting ones.
|
> > altcognito
If only everyones authentic self-expression were
so important to hear, to say nothing of unique and
inciteful.I'm not against authentic
self-expression, but this is more about being
wrapped up in ones own self-importance.
|
> > > NateEag
The only way people will get to
self-expression that's worth hearing is by
working their way through the self-expression
that wasn't.In a better world that would
happen in school and as a normal part of
growing up, but at least in the US, that
mostly doesn't happen.If humans use LLMs to
write, it's much more likely they will never
uncover the unique perspectives they could
share with the world.So, for those whose
parents and teachers failed them, embracing,
encouraging, and engaging their clumsy,
self-centered rudeness is, I think, the best
path forward.Granted, when it is clumsy,
self-centered, and rude, one of the more
helpful things we can do is offer the
critiques that clearly and coherently point
that out, as you've done here....though I
stand by my claim that using LLMs to write is
actually deeply offensive and rude, a
rejection of what it means to be human, and
that it should be met with strong rejections.
|
> > > > altcognito
We also probably need to lower our
standards somewhat, if not for the only
reason to allow ourselves to grow.One of
the best and worst things to ever happen
to self-expression was the internet. While
it exposes us to so many new ways of
thinking, it can also be repressive in so
many ways, not to mentions limits many of
us from engaging with those in the
immediate area. Also it holds onto our
worst outputs forever!You might see why I
really like the point about embracing
imperfect communication and expression for
so many reasons.I think it's fine to
strongly reject non-human communication
for certain (maybe even many purposes),
but there are a lot of "production" type
situations (boilerplate code, CRUD
systems) that don't require a human
grinding away at it, and humanity benefits
from using it's time more wisely. Defining
what is "intellectual" work versus this
"repetitive" work is kinda tough, and it
is probably different for everyone. There
is a certain amount of grinding necessary,
and some move through it faster than
others.In any case, thanks for the
response.
|
> inigyou
Unfortunately, due to how rude this comment was, I
won't be reading this or your future writing.Because
obviously someone who is rude must be wrong about
everything. If someone calls someone a waste of
biomass, by the rule of conservation of insults that
must imply they are not one. Also we must be civil and
polite to people who are destroying civilization.
|
> drdaeman
Tastelessness aside, it also shows that author doesn't
(or refuses to) understand why someone may decide to
delegate a documentation task to a subpar
agent.Laziness.Yes, conceptually it's something about
surrendering one's voice and agency to a subpar
machine. Or something like that. (Though that
persistence-suggestive neutering metaphor is probably
a unwarranted exaggeration.) In practice though it's
more like "I don't want to write anything, but some
poorly written document I'll just proofread to be not
too blatantly wrong beats having absolutely nothing.
PRs welcome."It might be not the best decision, sure.
Quite arguably, a wrong one. Still, I find it
concerning that it's sufficient for the author to
dehumanize someone, even in a jest of edginess. Like
wtf dude chill down, as if the world isn't mad enough
already.
|
> > zetalyrae
But the problem is people are not just delegating
formulaic procedural prose to AI. They're using AI
to write entire scientific papers, so now
reviewers have to use Pangram[0] to screen
submissions. Literary magazines have the same
problem[1]. Maybe those people should know that
their behaviour is bad.[0]:
https://blog.neurips.cc/2026/06/02/ai-generated-pa
pers-in-th...[1]:
https://neil-clarke.com/a-concerning-trend/
|
> > > drdaeman
Ah, yes, although that's a different situation
from the linked post, more disrespectful (and
potentially nefarious) than a sloppy readme.
In those cases, most likely, more than just
laziness is involved.
|
> > fwlr
Arguably, someone who has chosen to replace their
own human expression with machine words has
already dehumanized themselves - although this is
perhaps a too-literal reading the word
"dehumanized"?
|
> > > drdaeman
> who has chosenI very explicitly tried to
separate this third-party perception and
actual first-party intent. Well, my guess of
it, of course - but I find it hard to believe
someone decides to LARP Adeptus Mechanicus and
goes along the lines of "why don't I cede my
voice to the Machine Spirit", while "why don't
I task this tool to write notes instead of
doing it myself" is a lot more
plausible.Choices and outcomes are two very
different things.
|
lawgimenez
> because if you use AI to write, you are a waste of
biomassDamn, that is so hurtful. I'm sorry if English is
my third language. But for my project documents I would
love to read it like a proper documentation so I'm
thankful for AI.
|
> zetalyrae
Translation is fine.
|
> > layer8
It's a crutch, it's rarely as good as from an
experienced translator or native speaker, and
often distorts the original to some extent. It can
be the lesser evil when someone doesn't know the
language well, but it still tends to be a subpar
experience.
|
> > throwaboat
Is it, though? The post author is railing against
it.
|
> > > xboxnolifes
Nobody cared if you translated using Google
Translate in the past. People don't care if
you use claude to translate now. But people
are clearly doing more than they claim when
they just translate their text, since their
"translations" end up full of AI-isms.
|
foreigner
"the machine can't even write good yet"
|
> SaucyWrong
That fragment of OP's writing was so funny to me I'm
not sure it isn't intentionally placed.Regardless, I
would rather read a thousand pages of imperfect
writing than a single page of machine slop.
|
> > zetalyrae
It's a joke, c.f.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-8IuUkJJc
|