3 ms·
I mean, it smells an AI slop article, so it's hard to expect much coherence.
by fwip 10mo ago
I mean, it smells an AI slop article, so it's hard to expect much coherence.
- fwip 10mo agoI guess y'all disagree? > The Bun acquisition blows a hole in that story. > That contradiction is not a PR mistake. It is a signal. > The bottleneck isn’t code production, it is judgment. > They didn’t buy a pile of code. They bought a track record of correct calls in a complex, fast-moving domain. > Leaders don’t express their true beliefs in blog posts or conference quotes. They express them in hiring plans, acquisition targets, and compensation bands. Not to mention the gratuitous italics-within-bold usage.
- JSR_FDED 10mo agoNo no I agree: “No negotiations. No equity. No retention packages.” I don’t know if HN has made me hyper-sensitized to AI writing, but this is becoming unbearable. When I find myself thinking “I wonder what the prompt was they used?” while reading the content, I can’t help but become skeptical about the quality of the thinking behind the content. Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s the truth. Or put differently “Fair? No. Truthful? Yes.”. Ugh.
- zamadatix 10mo agoI was thinking the same but it's like they only used AI to handle the editing or something because even throwing it into ChatGPT "how could this article be improved: ${article}" gives: > Tighten the causal claim: “AI writes code → therefore judgment is scarce” As one of the first suggestions, so it's not something inherent to whether the article used AI in some way. Regardless, I care less about how the article got written and more about what conclusions really make sense.