Your post has a trove of really good data. A lot of care, skill and attention must have gone into building that kind of expertise. When you then use an LLM to produce a post about it, that comes off as lazy. It wouldn't have to be that way, but sadly very (very!) often is.[0]

Writing well is hard. Editing text to be readable is hard. Shortcutting that process is a signal to your audience that you do not appreciate their time. I use LLMs at work to generate client-facing analyses, but I never let a single version go out without doing at least some revising. LLMs love nothing more than to generate another token, which makes their output flowery and verbose. They overuse rule of three, without any of the underlying understanding why it works, let alone when (and how) to break it intentionally.

I spotted the familiar "seesaw cadence" in your post but ploughed through because the content itself was still damn good. It's a shame that you did not put the same level of care into your writing that has gone into developing the technical expertise. Getting the post flagged because of the generic anti-LLM sentiment is undesirable but expected. HN doesn't have a way to mark posts as "sloppy writing but content-wise really good".

It's the same kind of visceral reaction this crowd tends to have towards voice notes: "if you did not bother to condense your thoughts and instead dumped half an hour of rambling for me to dig through, why would I waste as long to listen to you not being able to say it clearly?" ["Podcast for none"]

0: The only exception I can point to is https://nearzero.software/p/warranty-void-if-regenerated (discussed at the time in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47431237).