I don't necessarily disagree with this conclusion, but the way it is written has a lot of AI prose smell that was extremely distracting for me.

▲

alwa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’m inclined to take the author at their word that they’re a copywriter by trade.

I agree that the punchy staccato and the rhetorical questions smell AI-ish, but the way this person uses them, there’s, like, a payload each time. Versus LLM-speak, where the assertions are at best banal and more frequently just confusing.

	▲	srcreigh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I've found myself using AI rhetorical styles. Mostly in PRs. The whole "not just X, Y" pattern hooked into my brain.

▲

tmaly 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I didn't get the AI vibe from it. At some point we are just going to have to get use to most stuff being written to some degree by AI.

There will be different shades of usage and maybe we draw a line somewhere in there.

	▲	jewel 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Also the consumption of AI-generated text could be having an influence on the tone of how people write. So even if AI was not used to write an article, it could "smell" like AI to someone who consumes less of it.
	▲	ThrowawayR2 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The written word is how people interact with LLMs. Clarity and precision in writing results in more effective prompting of LLMs. It is just as possible that leaning heavily AI writing will be seen as a marker of not being natively skilled enough at writing to prompt LLMs effectively because of the GIGO principle.
	▲	SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There's no fundamental reason that I have to read random blogposts from people I don't know. I do it today because I find it to be an enjoyable way to learn more about my profession and explore various perspectives on it. If I stop finding it enjoyable because too many people write their posts with AI, I'll stop reading these kind of blogs altogether, in the same way that I (and I suspect many commenters here) do not read even the most lovingly crafted Linkedin posts.
	▲	yesitcan 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Let’s do the exact opposite of what this person is saying. Resist AI slop.

▲

tolerance 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You have to be able to distinguish the scent of LLMs from the scent of Gary Halbert.

▲

zzzeek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

im either the biggest idiot in the world or this person is a terrible "copywriter". I found this post to be nearly unintelligible: "You can’t explain away someone else’s problem using your own problems." WTF does that mean? this would be a good place to put some very simplistic examples of what they mean, but they dont. is that because theyre trying to be succinct? clearly not as the post rambles on and on anyway. I hate posts that are both 1. not explaining their concept and 2. super long winded. That's a problem

are we just trying to say, "use AI for prototyping and customer demos that aren't important to be mature, use senior devs to develop and maintain the real products" ? You could just say that then...? Which I also disagree with as how AI should be used, AI is valid to include as a tool across all forms of development - it just should never be put in charge for production-level software (e.g. no vibe coding of mission critical components).