So I spent the weekend digging into the DX decisions that make Claude Code delightful.
In my opinion, to write is to think. And to write is also to express oneself, not only to create a "communication object," let's put it that way. I would rather read an imperfect human voice than a machine's attempts to fix it. I think it's worth to face the frustration that comes with writing, because the end goal of refining your own argument and your delivery is that much sweeter. Let your human voice shine through.
I cannot at all understand writing an essay and then having an llm "tighten up the sentences" which instead just makes it sound like slop generated from a list of bullets
I find it really hard to read articles that use AI slop aphorisms. Please use your own words, it matters.
Jokes aside, my English is passable and I'm fine with it when writing comments but I'm very aware that some of it doesn't sound native due to me, well, not being native speaker.
I use AI to make it sound more fluent when writing for my blog.
So it's me doing the writing and GPT making it sound more English.
It would still sound more human coming from you.
Feels more like peer pressure induced post, than evaluating a tool critically for pros and cons.
> Claude Code has this effect where you KNOW it's good but can't quite say WHY.
Definitely gives the "vibe" of social media's infinite scroll induced dopamine rush.
Overall, this post just seems to be enforcing the idea that "fuzzy understanding of business domain will be enough to get a mature product using some AI, and the AI will somehow magically figure out most non-functional requirements and missing details of business domain". Thing is that figuring out "most non-functional requirements and missing details of business domain" is where most of the blood and sweat goes.