Can I ask what makes it read like slop? Because lots of comments here on the style and little on the thinking behind it, which is where I spent my effort.
It seems like a lot of folks arguing about rather or not we need to still read code.
It seems like a lot of folks arguing about rather or not we need to still read code.
The fact that it's slop. People know it when they read it.
Put Claude and other LLMs away (for coding, writing, everything - block them on your firewall fully) for a few days and then write a blog post from scratch using your own words. No asking for help, comments, editing, nothing. Then compare against this. It'll jump out at you.
Ok, but (and this is the whole point) where _should_ we use LLMs? Because your comment could easily be said to someone writing code.
If slop === LLM involved, that's too reductive. If LLM does all the work, that's also too reductive.
I honestly feel like my actual writing style has drifted towards this, and I'm sure others' have too (although I overused em-dashes before it was uncool!).
But I think that… feeling someone's distinct verbal fingerprint as you read is a signal of authenticity among a sea of lazily generated slop, whereas even a carefully-crafted, thoughtful piece where the final thing is generated by an AI is missing that signal of authenticity.