Writing with LLM is not a shame

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Title, Grammar, and Style Nits

  • Early comments fixate on the title (“a LLM” vs “an LLM”, “not shameful” vs “not a shame”), used partly to mock the idea that LLM writing is fine while the post itself is linguistically rough.
  • Several note the article’s broken English; some say this actually underscores the author’s point (non‑native speakers may legitimately want help), others see it as evidence the author should have used a tool.

Legitimate vs Problematic Uses

  • Broad support for using LLMs as:
    • Grammar/spell/style checkers.
    • Translation or fluency aids for non‑native speakers.
    • Semantic search, summarization, and red‑teaming of code/specs.
  • Many insist the “message and reasoning” must remain human, and facts from LLMs must be verified; using raw LLM output without review is called rude and lazy.

Originality, Thinking, and Cognitive Costs

  • One camp argues few ideas are truly original anyway; curation and synthesis are already mostly remix.
  • Others counter that writing is thinking: outsourcing drafting/rewriting blunts cognition and will atrophy reasoning skills, similar concerns for code.
  • LLMs are compared to “training wheels” or “tire chains”: helpful in hard conditions, but dangerous if they never come off.

Ethics, Disclosure, and Trust

  • Strong sentiment that readers have a right to know if text is AI‑generated; undisclosed AI in conversation (emails, recommendations, farewell cards, support answers) is widely resented.
  • Writing is framed as relationship‑building, not just a transaction; AI mediation can corrupt trust and the mental model we form of the author.
  • Some see calls for disclosure as “ethics theater”; others argue it’s exactly about ethics—avoiding deception and shifting verification work onto others.

Quality of AI Prose and “Slop”

  • Many describe LLM prose as verbose, bland, and homogenized; even when correct, it lacks “soul” or intent.
  • Complaints about “AI slop” flooding chats, forums, and workplace comms; using LLMs without deep review is seen as offloading cognitive work and worsening the attention economy.

Style Markers (Em‑Dash Debate)

  • Long subthread over em‑dashes as a supposed LLM tell: some claim they’re now a strong signal, others push back hard, noting they’ve long been common in serious writing and many systems auto‑insert them.