alt Hacker NewsThe LLM writing sameness is bad. Use LLMs to help your writing! But don't include a word they generate, even just a vocabulary adjustment, in your own output. Have them critique structure and flow, spot overused words and passive constructions and dumb picks for topic sentences. It's great for that, and those are all objective improvements in your writing that won't mess up your style.
The LLM sameness in web design is good. Most sites shouldn't try to be idiosyncratic. The best design for a site with real utility is legibility, and LLMs are better at that than the median developer. Always laying out the same buttons? Always using the same type scales? Good! If it looks good to you, you weren't going to do better on your own, and you were very likely to do worse.
Replies
My problem with LLM web design is that it adds a lot of useless stuff all over the place. GPT-5.x is particularly bad for this. If it makes e.g. a dashboard it includes a ton of figures and bits of text all over the place that mostly just say the same thing twice. But of course this is not really an innate problem with the architecture and will probably be sorted out soon, and you'll get good results if you come up with all the copy first and then ask it to make the site.
> The LLM sameness in web design is good.
I'd say that sameness isn't good either from a LLM or solo founder SaaS #171876137.
I use them as a metaphor search and advanced dictionary. Every word is mine, but I get to improve my English and use some lesser-known (to me) expressions.
I have not used to review my writing yet. Is it that good?
Absolutely agree. I recently wrote a speech and can't imagine how terribly hack it would have been had I taken the LLM's words as my own. I have second hand embarrassment just thinking about someone writing something important for or about a loved one and using the saccharine crap that was suggested at various points to me. Absolute drivel and a giant flag that you don't actually care enough about the audience to bring your own words.
> The LLM sameness in web design is good. Most sites shouldn't try to be idiosyncratic. The best design for a site with real utility is legibility, and LLMs are better at that than the median developer. Always laying out the same buttons? Always using the same type scales? Good! If it looks good to you, you weren't going to do better on your own, and you were very likely to do worse.
See, I disagree. Having seen plenty of Claude generated websites and slide decks, to me it just screams "no effort whatsoever". AI sloppypasta for content, if you will.
If I can see within a few seconds that your website or slide was obviously AI generated, I will doubt its content, how much effort (if any) you've put into it, if it won't have hallucinations, and (especially for websites) if it's even real or a scam farm.
I'm not saying every website has to be unique, but at least tell your prompt to use a font or colour scheme or something specific to you that will make it seem like you've put in some effort and make the result stand out from the slop.
I've been using claude while trying to setup a new personal site. It's very nice to be able to say "I want a nice looking menu with links to other pages" and it spits out something good enough.
I would feel very weird using LLMs for writing, except for filing out stupid applications. I've had collaborators use LLMs for some technical writing and it's pretty much always borderline nonsense that has the aesthetic of something correct. For creative writing, I feel like heavily using an LLM would defeat the purpose :shrug: