Comment by barankilic
3 days ago
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.
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.
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 always tried to write code for future maintainers first. That is often me.
The 1s and 0s are meant to be used, the code is meant to be read
That's the difference to me. Code is used as instructions to computers. Written human language is used to to communicate thoughts, ideas, feelings to other humans.
I disagree with the premise that "we" are all OK with AI slop computer code however. Even if it's just for consumption by machines, for at least some developers it is a creative outlet.
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.
> I do not see the difference between writing code and writing prose.
That’s the problem.
This is a funny point. People don't want to read LLM code either, so who knows where that puts us.
It puts us in a secondary, less-rare, less-valuable role out of the driving economic loop we've grown up in.
Since I cannot edit my comment, I replied my comment. I did not mean to insult HN moderators. I am actually very happy that they are protecting HN by removing and flagging AI content. I only wanted to attract attention to the topic that for some areas AI is promoted but then for some areas AI is demoted and I do not get it.
What I mean with "we" is that there is a general perception that using AI is okay and mandatory. This idea is becoming more and more prevalent in management positions and it disturbs me deeply.
I got some replies since I commented, but I am still in the same mind. I did not see a strong refutation to my idea. Why are some people (I didn't want to use the word "we" again) are okay with AI use in code but not in prose? I know that they are not exactly same but they have some similarities. If we are unhappy with sloppy prose, why are we happy with sloppy, potentially buggy or hard to maintain code?
What hypocrisy is there in distinguishing between the qualitative value of prose vs code? They serve entirely different purposes; your failure to recognize that is no one else's fault.
I would say that the simple reason is that writing is often artistic and coding very rarely is.
I don’t listen to AI music or watch AI videos, I don’t want to read AI articles
> I am really amazed at how we are really okay with LLMs writing code end to end
Speak for yourself. Sounds like you're mostly referring to CTOs
I've been opposed to all of it the whole time. But yes, let's stop being hypocritical.
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.
Such unsubstantiated claims against the integrity of HN moderators should not be thrown around so casually.
Slop is slop.