new | show | ask | jobs Github

fwip 3 days ago

I mean, it smells an AI slop article, so it's hard to expect much coherence.

▲

fwip 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I guess y'all disagree?

> The Bun acquisition blows a hole in that story.

> That contradiction is not a PR mistake. It is a signal.

> The bottleneck isn’t code production, it is judgment.

> They didn’t buy a pile of code. They bought a track record of correct calls in a complex, fast-moving domain.

> Leaders don’t express their true beliefs in blog posts or conference quotes. They express them in hiring plans, acquisition targets, and compensation bands.

Not to mention the gratuitous italics-within-bold usage.

	▲	JSR_FDED 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No no I agree: “No negotiations. No equity. No retention packages.” I don’t know if HN has made me hyper-sensitized to AI writing, but this is becoming unbearable. When I find myself thinking “I wonder what the prompt was they used?” while reading the content, I can’t help but become skeptical about the quality of the thinking behind the content. Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s the truth. Or put differently “Fair? No. Truthful? Yes.”. Ugh.

▲

zamadatix 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I was thinking the same but it's like they only used AI to handle the editing or something because even throwing it into ChatGPT "how could this article be improved: ${article}" gives:

> Tighten the causal claim: “AI writes code → therefore judgment is scarce”

As one of the first suggestions, so it's not something inherent to whether the article used AI in some way. Regardless, I care less about how the article got written and more about what conclusions really make sense.