> That contradiction is not a PR mistake. It is a signal.
> The bottleneck isn’t code production, it is judgment.
> They didn’t buy a pile of code. They bought a track record of correct calls in a complex, fast-moving domain.
> Leaders don’t express their true beliefs in blog posts or conference quotes. They express them in hiring plans, acquisition targets, and compensation bands.
Not to mention the gratuitous italics-within-bold usage.
No no I agree: “No negotiations. No equity. No retention packages.”
I don’t know if HN has made me hyper-sensitized to AI writing, but this is becoming unbearable.
When I find myself thinking “I wonder what the prompt was they used?” while reading the content, I can’t help but become skeptical about the quality of the thinking behind the content.
Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s the truth. Or put differently “Fair? No. Truthful? Yes.”. Ugh.
I was thinking the same but it's like they only used AI to handle the editing or something because even throwing it into ChatGPT "how could this article be improved: ${article}" gives:
> Tighten the causal claim: “AI writes code → therefore judgment is scarce”
As one of the first suggestions, so it's not something inherent to whether the article used AI in some way. Regardless, I care less about how the article got written and more about what conclusions really make sense.
I guess y'all disagree?
> The Bun acquisition blows a hole in that story.
> That contradiction is not a PR mistake. It is a signal.
> The bottleneck isn’t code production, it is judgment.
> They didn’t buy a pile of code. They bought a track record of correct calls in a complex, fast-moving domain.
> Leaders don’t express their true beliefs in blog posts or conference quotes. They express them in hiring plans, acquisition targets, and compensation bands.
Not to mention the gratuitous italics-within-bold usage.
No no I agree: “No negotiations. No equity. No retention packages.”
I don’t know if HN has made me hyper-sensitized to AI writing, but this is becoming unbearable.
When I find myself thinking “I wonder what the prompt was they used?” while reading the content, I can’t help but become skeptical about the quality of the thinking behind the content.
Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s the truth. Or put differently “Fair? No. Truthful? Yes.”. Ugh.
I was thinking the same but it's like they only used AI to handle the editing or something because even throwing it into ChatGPT "how could this article be improved: ${article}" gives:
> Tighten the causal claim: “AI writes code → therefore judgment is scarce”
As one of the first suggestions, so it's not something inherent to whether the article used AI in some way. Regardless, I care less about how the article got written and more about what conclusions really make sense.