Comment by marcobambini
1 day ago
I wrote tons of software, even a programming language by hand https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity.
I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. As developers, we can choose to adapt to new technologies or become extinct.
Please consider writing your Readmes by hand even if the code is computer-generated. I want to read what human authors think about their projects. I virtually never want to read what a computer thought.
This. Code written by LLMs using the new agentic SDLC is fine, can even be good code. But we shouldn't expect users to read sloppy slop, it's just plain lazy.
Also irrespective of the merits of LLMs, it's simply unpleasant to read LLM generated prose. It can't write well. The annoyance is compounded when you read the same poor writing everywhere.
I don't know how people that shovel AI prose don't realise this. Are they not also reading other people's shitty AI text?
I did see one sloperator who told his agent to copy his writing style. I have no idea if that works but it's got to be better than yet more "Here's the kicker" LinkedIn drivel.
Even worse than that, it's not the LLM, it's the operator. Mimicking your own style given a corpus is the lowest possible bar - you can also select among the great writers (technical or not) from history and have it give you eerily correct stylistic cues. Try Hemingway or Mark Twain next time you feel like generating a doc. Benjamin Franklin if you're feeling particularly Poor Richard.
There's no reason any more to read bad documentation. You can feed any docs in and get them in the precise style you want, so don't impose bad prose on others in your repos. Pick a solid technical writing base, jargon free, and go from there. I sometimes generate architecture proposals from the llm in RFC format and it's word perfect.
Rewrite the readme in my voice, use all of my comments and responses in current context as source. Don't use em dashes or other LLM things.
Done, solved. Never had a problem with a readme or email since.
6 replies →
Look I'll be honest in that I didn't read your code (or even open the link) so this totally might not apply to you, but:
> I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster.
Everyone says that. And most of them are wrong about the better part. Referring to your previous ability to write code is almost an appeal to authority at this point because it's coming with the assumption that you review the code with he same vigor, and that you are just as good as you were before you offloaded these tasks regularly to LLMs. Maybe you do and maybe you are, but I will say that a lot of the people I've worked with who I used to respect and whose code was good now produce absolute crap. The models are getting better so their code is getting a bit better, but I no longer believe they had anything to do with the quality, they no longer seem to care.
I disagree with the naysayers. The README was scannable and sectioned so I could read what I wanted. But some things I wish were clearer, and I’m not sure they would be if you wrote it by hand.
Don’t waste your time rewriting it by hand just because keyboard warriors are up in arms on HN.
The material feedback here reflects the questions who might be from someone who’s been running local LLMs, so ask the LLM to update it with that in mind.
Another poster pointed out it’s not clear what the quantization is. There’s that one paragraph but it’s confusing. What I want to know right away is: are you running the unquantized model or is it quantized? If so, how much? Use terms like Q3 or Q4 or 4-bit or 8-bit. Explain why it’s not practical to quantize less. How much precision loss do you think there is at the quantization selected? What if I had 128GB RAM and wanted to have better precision and not higher token speed—would it be a good idea to choose 4-bit instead of 3-bit for some of these layers?
[dead]
> I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster.
The fact that the top comment on this thread calls it out, in a negative way, hints at that you aren't.
> > I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. > > The fact that the top comment on this thread calls it out, in a negative way, hints at that you aren't.
It's interesting that what I meant as a purely factual question with no prejudice either way has been taken by almost everyone to be explicitly negative & critical.
I need to be a tad less blunt I guess if I don't want to
Non sequitur