I am really amazed at how we are really okay with LLMs writing code end to end (without human in the loop) / dark factory concept but when it comes articles, HN is suddenly against LLMs writing words. I do not see the difference between writing code and writing prose. Both have keywords, grammars, syntax, meaningful combinations (function or chaining in code / collocations in words). If we think that AI-generated words are not meaningful or easy to follow that same must apply to AI-generated code, which may be harder to read or understand since it is not written by human. Let's stop being hypocrites.
Note: My comment is not specific to this comment. I just wanted to express myself at somewhere and this is where I think it may be suitable.
That's because the purpose of code is to be used, not to be read.
The only purpose of the written word is to be read.
I've been opposed to all of it the whole time. But yes, let's stop being hypocritical.
The purpose of writing is to get your thoughts across in words. A prompt sufficient enough to get out an article with zero chance of it adding things you don't mean has to contain as much information as the article itself would. Just write the article.
This is a funny point. People don't want to read LLM code either, so who knows where that puts us.
> I do not see the difference between writing code and writing prose.
That’s the problem.
We are not okay with slop code. There was healthy and widespread dissent in 2024 and beginning of 2025. Ycombinator cracked down on the dissent first by installing another moderator and then by downranking and banning anti-AI people.
What you read here are bots and those invested in AI and an occasional retired person who uses AI as a crutch.
Slop is slop.
Who is the 'we' here? When did I become ok with LLMs writing code end to end or against LLMs being used to assist writers? I wasn't aware I held either of these positions.