Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrmg | Hacker News Reader

This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…)

The argument that communicating an idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels counterintuitive, but it’s really true.

Whether it’s debugging, ‘big’ writing, or even down to the scale of a tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I’ve often had the experience of starting to explain a process or opinion and only then discovering that it’s inconsistent or even indefensible.

I suspect (I hope!) that this is something everyone can empathize with.

View on HN

The author doesn't come across as arrogant to me, more like frustrated. The tone is certainly not for everyone but I enjoyed it. And I agree that it's a good essay!

> This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…)

We have reached the point where you have college professors who defend[0] using AI to write scientific papers (in a seemingly AI-written tweet). Everywhere I go online, I see spam written with the exact same voice. Scientific journals and literary magazines are inundated with AI-written submissions. Software projects have shut contributions because maintainers are tired of reading AI-written slop pull requests.

What's the right tone to take here? "Please stop defecting"? "I wish you would kindly stop ruining the commons"? I don't know. Maybe, if we raise the reputational cost of slop, we get less of it.

[0]: https://x.com/harryjwang/status/2062710375884148945

Perhaps I meant ‘crude’ rather than ‘arrogant’. Or another word that a blend of the two.

I mean, I think there’s a middle ground between defending all uses of AI writing and saying “It’s like making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife.”

Edit: or “if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass”

Maybe you're right.

Yeah I don't know. I mean the author says only smart people can write good. And then says anyone who uses AI to write is basically giving up their genetalia so that Anthropic's AI model could make love to your wife (apparently without her consent because you can obviously just decide who has sex with your wife).

The author should learn how to write properly and communicate ideas in a less sexist and disgusting way if he wants to make a point about writing well.

The blog post has terrible writing sorry.

> you can obviously just decide who has sex with your wife

That's your fantasies, not author's. He merely implied that one can obviously decide whom to allow to fuck one's wife. He hasn't implied that wife's consent is unnecessary or automatic.

Don't be obtuse.

I could not get past "waste of biomass".

He is correct though. If you are a proxy to Claude what is the use of yourself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com