Sure. I did not mean to throw shade at people whose professional survival depends on doing this.

I'm merely trying to establish that it's bad. A lot of HN seems to be cheering for the badness. That is, to me, unfathomable.

▲

sscaryterry 15 hours ago | parent [-]

You are trying to establish that it is bad based on your beliefs.

I've pointed out to you that LLMs are forced onto people. I fear you are out of touch with the job market requirements of 2026.

▲

gspr 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Huh? You can accept things that are forced onto you, due to needing to earn a living, while still acknowledging that the things that are forced onto you are bad.

All I'm trying to say here is that slopcode is generally a bad idea. If you are forced to slopcode to earn a living, I am not saying you shouldn't do that ("be a purist", as you'd put it). I'm just trying to point out that HN doesn't seem to generally acknowledge that concept as being bad.

▲

sscaryterry 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it is much too early to outright say it is bad. Very few things are trivial enough to classify in a binary way as in bad or good.

Slop is not okay, this isn't disputed.

When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it.

▲

gspr 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it.

No.

▲

sscaryterry 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair enough. Honestly, nobody is "forced" to slopcode, this is the human's decision, no?

▲

gspr 11 hours ago | parent [-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48767422

▲

sscaryterry 11 hours ago | parent [-]

!Purist != Slopper

Just because you are forced to use an LLM, does not mean you can only produce slop.

	▲	gspr 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Of course. What's your point?