The whole point of software is/was that someone else takes care of it for you. It has been a one way street about only making money until recently. But LLM flips the switch on this I hope. If it's bad, someone could actually whip out an LLM and recreate it. Sure, anyone can create software with LLMs. The expensive part of software is maintaining it. And everybody starts creating custom software for everything, it's gonna be super costly to built and maintain them.

Lichess and Whatsapp before FB acquisition are the biggest examples I know of making good products with limited resources.

Can't be serious.

At the time, look at the situation of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and the many whistle blowers before Snowden? How can u blame him?

Edit: Am unable to reply to comments. HN don't let you comment 2-3 levels in or is it moderation? - Fixed.

Lemme ask you a counter question, the senior architect writes the proposal and the junior writes it. Which one do you think client likes better?

Moreover, Your focus is on the end-result. Sure, in corporate environment, most people don't care about what they do as long as the end results checks some boxes. That wasn't the discussion here. The discussion is about writing and reading in general. Whether it's worth my time or not if you don't mean (forget mean, don't even remember) what you wrote.

Also, in your own example, the client don't care as well. As long the client's checks all the boxes his/her/their manager said should satisfy. Nobody really gives a damn about the quality.

Also, are you saying you'll be fine paying for Financial Times, WSJ and NYTimes KNOWING all they do is shove the story through an LLM? Neither will there be a soul, nor will there be any material effect on people who reads it.

> Or you think that for some reason prompting a LLM and forwarding it's output after vetting is different than prompting a human and forwarding the output after vetting.

There is difference no? I forward the output to get good feedback and correction from someone BETTER. And there is a process involved in it which showcases the "TASTE" you mentioned from the person whom you are forwarding your output to be vetted and that person comes up to you with feedback. And guess what? You learn from the person's feedback. You don't go back again and again forever to learn the same thing. That's exactly what am trying to point out.

I mean, how can you say that he didn't think it himself? I thought this same thing and realised apparently I'm not the first. You have no idea how many of my blog posts ideas have come in HN first before I could publish. People can have the same thoughts. And have em all the time as well.

Psss.. See how @sm-silversight who commented on your post said the same thing I did? That's realtime example right there.

Coming back to the topic at hand. I agree with the OP. If you don't care to write it, why should anyone read it? AI has good usecases. But am not sure writing is one.

Writing is not just about the end result. It's also about the thought process. I learn about the topic more as I write. I correct my incorrect understandings as I write. When am pissed, my article has a different tone. Am rude, too direct. When am content/happy, different one. All of this is sterilised into something robotic where the author won't even remember what he/she wrote? What's the to like? For brownie points?

PS: Loved your website's (https://ben.church/) messaging for different audiences. Especially the "My Wife" one. Gave me a good laugh. :)

Data economy which survives on privacy encroaching practices depend on ur "stream of data". Reducing the flow can exclude you from data breaches, spam calls, personalised pricing which rips from you etc.

Sure, there are PII which can't be hidden. But you surely can reduce the footprint. And browsing the internet is always a better UX with adblockers.

https://www.unsungnovelty.org/posts/07/2026/fire-alarms-priv...