Comment by NicoHartmann
15 days ago
> "I’m not saying don’t use AI agents. I use Claude Code every day."
Irony is using Claude to write a beautifully structured, 2,000-word essay warning the industry about the dangers of letting Claude design things. It’s self-awareness by proxy.
This should be the first comment. I wrote some criticism, mostly because many internal contradictions in the article. Then, I notice the structure...
"The accountability gap" Here’s the question nobody’s asking: when it goes wrong, who carries the bag? (..)
"What to do instead"
"The craft still matters"
> It’s not just inefficient. It’s backwards.
> That’s not fair. And it’s not smart.
The amount of AI slop that makes it to HN is concerning. I don't know whether readers here don't care or don't notice it anymore. Or maybe they are only reading the title and then commenting? My #1 tell is an article that's suspiciously long without any real "story", that is, pictures of someone hacking at a laptop. It's always 20,000 words AI hate, ironically.
I've found a common giveaway of AI writing to be having many unnatural pauses in sentences. For example,
A normal person would've used ~2 sentences for this, even if it became a run-on sentence. You can feel the AI being very confident in what the prompter wants to get across, which is ironic, given that this is 2 paragraphs above:
Oh man I wrote this exact comment before trawling far enough to find yours. It belongs at the top. That HN cannot discern the obvious is more alarming than the blatant hypocrisy of the authors. Yeesh!
Seriously. Who gives a fuck about yet another AI-skeptic screed that the lazy-ass author couldn’t be bothered to write themselves?
Braindead.