This would be a lot more convincing if it were written by a human. The omission of showing what what actually "shipped" says more than all the words in the writeup. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what AI critics are saying and what evidence would change their mind.
It really doesn't take much: "I used AI to make X. You can find it at https://whatever." Show people the actual results.
I've tried reading this and I can't. It's not that the text is AI generated, it's that the whole structure seems to be. (Hope you appreciate the irony of my LLMisms). It's not human-parseable, at least not by this human. And it's not that my attention is shot, luckily I'm still able to read copious amounts of long-form text and analysis.
Also, opening with "I'm a top performer"... That's not how writing for other humans works. It's perfectly legitimate to establish authority in the opening a piece, but you have to show some credible proof. "I'm a top performer" is immediately off-putting.
Based on the numbers from article this person says they are writing a prompt every 3 minutes, all day long, every day.
This is just nonsense. The whole thing looks like the fever dream of someone in a severe manic episode. Even the formatting and writing style of blog has a manic feeling. Hard to tell if that’s coming from the user or the AI.
I’d like to know how many users does all this “shipped code” have?
>35 years building event-driven distributed systems.
Also this guy was not building event-driven distributed systems in 1991.
> High performers have built infrastructure that makes AI effective
And yet these "high performers" ship nothing but thousands of words of how AI makes them performant, or hundreds of thousands of the worst quality slop you can imagine (see Garry Tan's GStack, Steve Yegge's Gastown etc.)
> 650 work arcs clustered into distinct types.
And the result of these arcs are?
At this point I lost all interest in the navel-gazing, AI-generated or AI-corrected verbiage that can rival Yegge's, and no idea what he spent all these 543 autonomous hours actually doing.
This would be a lot more convincing if it were written by a human. The omission of showing what what actually "shipped" says more than all the words in the writeup. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what AI critics are saying and what evidence would change their mind.
It really doesn't take much: "I used AI to make X. You can find it at https://whatever." Show people the actual results.
I've tried reading this and I can't. It's not that the text is AI generated, it's that the whole structure seems to be. (Hope you appreciate the irony of my LLMisms). It's not human-parseable, at least not by this human. And it's not that my attention is shot, luckily I'm still able to read copious amounts of long-form text and analysis.
Also, opening with "I'm a top performer"... That's not how writing for other humans works. It's perfectly legitimate to establish authority in the opening a piece, but you have to show some credible proof. "I'm a top performer" is immediately off-putting.
Based on the numbers from article this person says they are writing a prompt every 3 minutes, all day long, every day.
This is just nonsense. The whole thing looks like the fever dream of someone in a severe manic episode. Even the formatting and writing style of blog has a manic feeling. Hard to tell if that’s coming from the user or the AI.
I’d like to know how many users does all this “shipped code” have?
>35 years building event-driven distributed systems.
Also this guy was not building event-driven distributed systems in 1991.
> High performers have built infrastructure that makes AI effective
And yet these "high performers" ship nothing but thousands of words of how AI makes them performant, or hundreds of thousands of the worst quality slop you can imagine (see Garry Tan's GStack, Steve Yegge's Gastown etc.)
> 650 work arcs clustered into distinct types.
And the result of these arcs are?
At this point I lost all interest in the navel-gazing, AI-generated or AI-corrected verbiage that can rival Yegge's, and no idea what he spent all these 543 autonomous hours actually doing.
[dead]
[dead]