Presumably this has gotten way, way more complicated in the last 13 years.

If there's a vote threshold, it's still profoundly influenced by the HN algorithm, because front page exposure is the principal component in how many votes a story gets.

So, I think I agree with all of this, but want to use this post to host my take on AI writing, a take I don't think I can get across on the big thread here on my post about AI writing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49747070

I think people are stuck in the idea that the way you "use AI to write" is to let it generate alternative words for your thoughts. That's a terrible way to write. I advocate for a rule: "any word an LLM suggests to you is disqualified, even if it's better than the word you've chosen". Nobody is vigilant enough to keep LLM word selection from bleaching out their personal style.

But LLMs can do things for language (natch) that deterministic programs can't. Those things are helpful and you should consider taking advantage of them. Here's a short list of ways an LLM can potentially improve your writing:

* It can instantly spot overused words and turns of phrase, or, better still, worthless filler and throat-clearing like "just" and "very" and "it's important to note".

* It can rescue active verbs trapped inside nouns, where sentences are wrapped in zombie verbs like "make" or "reach" or "start" or "have", carbonite-frozen verbs like "decision" or "agreement" or "distortion".

* It can match the subjects of your sentences with actual characters in the action of your story or argument, flagging all the times you accidentally nail the subject of a sentence down to some random part of the scenery. It can check to see whether the new detail each sentence adds (if it adds any at all --- something else it can check) is in the stress position of the sentence.

* It can check your transitions and flag places where the openings of sentences and paragraphs are abrupt. For that matter: it can check the topic sentences of paragraphs and the flow from graf to graf.

* It can check for passive voice, but also note the (many) instances where passive is the right call for what you're trying to say.

The model never gets tired. It generally never forgets the rules. It can instantaneously diagram out a sentence and work out an accurate model of the semantics of your writing. It's doing things you cannot do with a grammar checker.

You're not going to want to act on everything an LLM flags. LLMs have an idiosyncratic sense of style (I keep saying they write every sentence like it's the headline of a magazine article). Some of these quirks of writing will be part of your voice, and you'll need to keep them.

You're not going to want the LLM to give you alternate words and sentences. That way lies Velveeta. And many times, the LLM will flag a usage issue and your response won't be to act on the suggestion, but just to rewrite the sentence or paragraph entirely --- or, better yet: just delete it, which is an awesome feeling.

This is using an LLM as a copyeditor. I've worked with professional copyeditors, and the feeling of working with an LLM copyeditor is comparable, except that the LLM is much more thorough, and I don't feel bad about ignoring it when we disagree. This style of working doesn't allow the model to infect your writing; it's just making you better informed about the words you're choosing. I think more people should try it.

I suspect that between the advice in this article and your own...people fear that thinking is the only thing they have left to do in order to write.

You caught me. And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddlesome kids!

You seem salty. The entire post a ton of words that says basically nothing at all.

Unsurprising, given Claude wrote it all.

I don't so much worry about whether LLMs taking my prompts enjoy my style.

Apparently your detector is out of whack.

Ordinary people were writing before the option existed to accept words from AI models.

And the question is whether that output is better than what an LLM can produce. I am not a good writer, so in my case it's not obvious.

LLMs do that every sentence. This is the last sentence in the piece. Like the em-dash, and like every transformer model, people overfit.

What is this comment responding to? I don't think anybody in this thread, or the article itself, believes "emitting words" is what writing is?

Which is exactly what the post says, and why I say "do not accept a single word suggested by an LLM".