Why does it matter, as long as the output is of high quality? E.g., a Spielberg directed movie indicates a level of quality, even if Spielberg didn't do everything himself.
You’re making assumptions on the quality of the article just because it’s written with the help of ai, I think that not justified in general.
I too found the write-up to be a little dry and long-winded, even though the same critique might be leveled at myself [hopefully to a lesser extent]. I did feel like it was a good step up from the usual AI slop out there, and served to illustrate Kiro's capabilities.
I suppose in this context, I wanted to see whether I could take my reader on a journey long enough for them to be surprised by the AI reveal at the end. I'm not sure whether it achieved that but that was the artistic intent of this specific piece.
I’m not sure that’s true in an iron-clad, first-principles way. I think that many of the insights created by humans are combinations/integrations of existing concepts. That category of insight does not seem to require carbon-based reasoning.
I don’t claim that it can be achieved by statistical text generation, but I doubt the typical blog author is creating something that forever will be human-only.
This seems to be the dividing line in the AI writing debate.
If one cares about the interpersonal connection formed with the author, generally they seem to strongly dislike machine-generated content.
If one cares about the content in isolation, then generally the perceived quality is more important than authorship. "The author is dead" and all that.
Both points are valid IMO. It's okay to dislike things, and it's okay to enjoy things.
> I want new and genuine insights that only another human can create.
This is a good illustration of what I mean: you personally value the connection with the author, and you can't get a human connection when there was never a human to begin with.
If you take a look at the others in the thread who had a positive view of the work, they generally focused on the content instead.
LLMs, in contrast, experience nothing. When they "write", they are not even vaguely approximating what a human writer does.
Is it not high quality output when a ghost writer writes someone’s work? Can I use a thesaurus? What about a translator?
As long as the person who is putting their name on the article has provided the ideas and ensures that the output matches their intent, I see no reason to draw arbitrary lines.
Translator: Only if it's not creative writing and only if the output doesn't need to be accurate / there is margin for error.
Granted, the line is hard to place - see also the other post about where the line for adult content should be. But the thing is, when writing is AI generated, how can you know for sure that all the output was actually read and verified by the author? And text is not that important, but what about code?
The other argument: if an author didn't take the time and effort to write something, why should I take the time and effort to read and understand it? This applies to poorly written content as well. Ironically, a lot of people will already feed this article (and this comment) into an LLM to summarize it, if not to help them form an opinion about it. Summarizing isn't new though, there were tools some years ago to summarize webpages already.
Do you really care if Spielberg’s team manually edits the movie or uses an AI powered video editing tool? In the end Spielberg is responsible for the end quality of the movie.
You see, a movie is fictional work, but a blog article most likely isn't (or shouldn't). In this case, I am reading the article because I want to know an objective, fair assessment of Kiro from a human, not random texts generated from an LLM.
1. The constant whiplash of paragraphs which describe an amazing feature followed by paragraphs which walk it back ("The shift is subtle but significant / But I want to be clear", "Kiro would implement it correctly / That said, it wasn't completely hands-off", "The onboarding assistance was genuinely helpful / However, this is also where I encountered", "It's particularly strong at understanding / However, there are times when");
2. Bland analogies that detract from, rather than enhance, understanding ("It's the difference between being a hands-on manager who needs to check every detail versus setting clear expectations and trusting the process.", "It's like having a very knowledgeable colleague who..."); and
3. literal content-free filler ("Here's where it got interesting", "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good", "Most importantly / More importantly"), etc etc.
Kiro is a new agentic IDE which puts much more of a focus on detailed, upfront specification than competitors like Cursor. That's great. Just write about that.
To respond to you though, yes that is possible, but anyone who put in that level is work is highly unlikely to credit the AI as a writer.
And anyway, I had (and have) a choice. Plenty of people are still using their own words and have (or are building) confidence in their own voice, so those are the people I seek out because by giving them support I help make the world I want to live in