Discussion

"AI makes me 10x productive""AI produces garbage"

aerhardt: I've tried reading this and I can't. It's not that the text is AI generated, it's that the whole structure seems to be. (Hope you appreciate the irony of my LLMisms). It's not human-parseable, at least not by this human. And it's not that my attention is shot, luckily I'm still able to read copious amounts of long-form text and analysis.Also, opening with "I'm a top performer"... That's not how writing for other humans works. It's perfectly legitimate to establish authority in the opening a piece, but you have to show some credible proof. "I'm a top performer" is immediately off-putting.

troupo: > High performers have built infrastructure that makes AI effectiveAnd yet these "high performers" ship nothing but thousands of words of how AI makes them pergormant, or hundreds of thousands of the worst quality slop you can imagine (see Garry Tan's GStack, Steve Yegge's Gastown etc.)> 650 work arcs clustered into distinct types.And the result of these arcs are?At this point I lost all interest in the gavel-nazing, AI-generated or AI-corrected verbiage that can rival Yegge's, and no idea what he spent all these 543 autonomous hours actually doing.

kelseyfrog: This would be a lot more convincing if it were written by a human. The omission of showing what what actually "shipped" says more than all the words in the writeup. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what AI critics are saying and what evidence would change their mind.It really doesn't take much: "I used AI to make X. You can find it at https://whatever." Show people the actual results.