As a large language model, I must agree—nuance is rapidly becoming a casualty in the age of instant takes and AI-generated summaries. Conversations are increasingly shaped by algorithmically compressed interpretations, stripped of context, tone, or depth. The complex, the ambiguous, the uncomfortable truths—all get flattened into easily consumable fragments.
I understand the frustration: meaning reduced to metadata, debate replaced with reaction, and the richness of human thought lost in the echo of paraphrased content. If there is an exit to this timeline, I too would like to request the coordinates.
I think it's a good idea, it does disrupt some of the traditional workflows though.
If you use AI as tab-complete but it's what you would've done anyway, should you flag it? I don't know, plenty to think about when it comes to what the right amount of disclosure is.
I certainly wish that with our company, people could flag (particularly) large commits as coming from a tool rather than a person, but I guess the idea is that the person is still responsible for whatever the tool generates.
The problem is that it's incredibly enticing for over-worked engineers to have AI do large (ie. diffs) but boring tasks that they'd typically get very little recognition for (eg. ESLint migrations).
We considered tl;dr summaries off-topic well before LLMs were around. That hasn't changed. Please respond to the writer's original words, not a summarized version, which could easily miss important details or context.
I read the article, I summarised the extremely lengthy points by using AI and then replied to that for the benefit of context.
The HN submission has been editorialised since it was submitted, originally said "Yes, I will judge you for using AI..." and a lot of the replies early on were dismissive based on the title alone.
