Comment by jimnotgym

It's a bit of an indicator about the effort they put into it. If they don't even write their blogpost themselves the question of "how much effort and thought did they put into the rest of their code / product".

Now, obviously they might just be bad at writing blogposts but surprisingly often it seems to be a decent red flag.

Because the thing is that the less effort you put into that the more anyone can just...reproduce the idea with their own LLM.

Even if s.o buil a cool thing and wants to share it with the world, if all they did was prompt Claude for a weekend what is stopping me from just doing it myself? Then I can even get it however I want.

Of all the things LLMs do, one of the most fun is that they help you get over that hump of activation energy for an idea. We all have limited spare time, and going from "hey this might be cool" to a working prototype in minutes instead of days is intoxicating.

Much like my own heaving ~/prototypes folder, there is an avalanche of small projects other people are building in their own spare time (with LLMs), and there is a subsequent avalanche of "check out my cool project" posts. This is cool! However, unfortunately, almost universally, there is very little follow through. If you come back to those projects after a month, most are abandoned.

The creators of the ones that tend to last, at least in my brief experience so far, _do_ write useful blog posts by hand, or put a bit of human effort into sharing what they've built. I guess when I encounter someone sharing their work by way of blog post, it feels to me like they don't really care about actually sharing that work.

Also -- and this is much more a me thing -- I'm just fucking tired of reading Claude's writing. I have to work with Claude most days, and seeing it take over the whole internet is suffocating. Inflicting more of it on others just sucks.

If there is a choice, I would much rather someone use an AI to do the project, and then used their human words to explain what the project is, rather than vice versa.

The critical difference is that a project artifact (software or mechanical design) is good as long as it works. It might not be maintanable, or editable or extendable, but it might narrowly just work. But explanations don't work like that. The content, the actual words matter just as much as the overall message.

An explanation can be thought of as software executed in your brain as you read it. I don't want to execute badly written software in my brain.

No, it's not. It's an indicator that they're prioritizing the easy things surrounding the work, rather than the actual work.

The AI slop is noise pushing out valuable posts someone put effort in to.