I felt the same way and came to the comments to see if anyone else smelled it. It's either AI-assisted writing or people are genuinely starting to write like how ChatGPT sounds.
First, the structure of this satirical post is headings and bullet points. Fine, whatever, a lot of people write this way.
Then there's the exhausting litany of super short sentence fragments.
> He published this. Openly. In a book. As a priest.
This is how airport novels and LinkedIn "thought leadership" clickbait is written, so ok, fine, I'll let it pass.
Then I started to notice a lot of: "It's not X. It's Y" or "this isn't just A. It's B."
> Feeding isn’t nutrition. It’s dialysis.
Before LLMs, people weren't writing this way. At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon: it's insulting to read, like the reader is a 5-year-old.
When several of these smells pile up, I close the tab immediately and try to forget about it. This one was so egregious that I had to read the whole thing and then come to the comments to rant a bit.
Has it? The original hacker movement surely had it, but is that still the tech community? I feel that since about 2012 the tech community has been money seekers — people who want to own the next AirBNB and Uber — and they don't care about individual liberty.
This is so sad. I read this comment a few hours ago and keep thinking about it. You seem to be making a relatively good effort to understand but coming up short.
Our society is so cooked, man. We don’t even realize how over it is, and even people genuinely trying to understand are not able to.
Well, why don't you try to explain (since you seem to give me credit for being interested)? Right now I am slightly confused about how this is the best response you came up with, after a few hours of thinking (on-and-off at best, I am sure) about it.
If you’d trust generative AI over a physician, go in wide-eyed knowing that you’re still placing your trust in some group of people. You just don’t have an individual to blame if something goes wrong, but rather the entire supply chain that brings the model and its inference. Every link in that chain can shrug their shoulders and point to someone else.
This may be acceptable to you as an individual, but it’s not to me.
Finally, someone in this thread says this. Thank you!
This opinion column from The Hill is written by a Fox News contributor. Of course it’s going to leave out certain inconvenient facts in service of a nativist agenda. The HN community time and time again shows that they are ready to be whipped up into an anti-immigrant frenzy at the drop of a hat.
One of the rebuttals at the end of the post addresses this.
> That’s only true when you’re in a large corporation. When you’re by yourself, when you’re the stakeholder as well as the developer, you’re not in meetings. You're telling me that people aren’t shipping anything solo anymore? That people aren’t shipping new GitHub projects that scratch a personal itch? How does software creation not involve code?
So if you’re saying “LLMs do speed up coding, but that was never the bottleneck,” then the author is saying, “it’s sometimes the bottleneck. E.g., personal projects”
First, the structure of this satirical post is headings and bullet points. Fine, whatever, a lot of people write this way.
Then there's the exhausting litany of super short sentence fragments.
> He published this. Openly. In a book. As a priest.
This is how airport novels and LinkedIn "thought leadership" clickbait is written, so ok, fine, I'll let it pass.
Then I started to notice a lot of: "It's not X. It's Y" or "this isn't just A. It's B."
> Feeding isn’t nutrition. It’s dialysis.
Before LLMs, people weren't writing this way. At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon: it's insulting to read, like the reader is a 5-year-old.
When several of these smells pile up, I close the tab immediately and try to forget about it. This one was so egregious that I had to read the whole thing and then come to the comments to rant a bit.