| ▲ | cmsefton 5 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
One of my favourite rules: perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. This is invaluable to writing. So much text from an LLM feels superfluous, like I could've said the same wall of text with just a few sentences. Writing is tightly coupled with thinking: refining thoughts, arguments, ideas, discarding them, mulling over them. LLM text always raises this nagging question in my mind: am I reading what you think, or what your agent parroted back and you accepted? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | memjay 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
There is no way that solely talking to an agent induces the same depth or amount of thinking than when you are actually writing for yourself. It just takes too much discipline to not offload your thinking. And the discipline gets attacked even more when all you read is LLM text. For example in code reviews there is no noticeable value in answering LLM generated review comments. I remember taking great care answering human-written reviews comments with much thought to either further build on their suggestions or to forward knowledge about the system when I had to defend a particular change. Now, some bot will read my carefully written response and forgets about it. There is no value anymore. No wonder that our pull request comments feel like the dead internet theory right now. I am absolutely pro AI assisted coding. But communication between humans HAS to stay human. I am currently experiencing the opposite and it’s bad. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | AlienRobot 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." s/time/effort | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rnjesus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
[dead] | |||||||||||||||||