I’ve tried to explain this to folks as “having taste”, but I’m always worried it comes off as subjective and snobby. It might be a fair assessment honestly, it’s hard for me to describe so I wouldn’t hold anyone to it as a standard. Give me an honest vibe check on that.

Theres a lot of codebases out there that are at odds with my own opinions about syntax/structure/purpose, but there’s evidence of “taste” that I absolutely respect. I can look at a couple modules, and have a good idea what the other modules are going to be like, because the mental model of the author is clear from the code itself. Even teams with multiple authors with taste average out to one taste-profile and in a similar way, I’ve seen LLM output shaped by someone with taste and had the same feeling: “yeah I see the direction you’re going in”.

Someone without taste using an LLM writes slop. I can’t tell what you’re doing. Any question about what you’re doing results in “sorry that was Claude”. Entirely pointless that you’re even involved.

It’s a property of the author IMO. They were kind of owed an existential crisis as cruel as that is to say.

Was recognized long before AI came on the scene.

The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products.

Steve Jobs

HAH! Ok fair, maybe parts of that quote are rattling around somewhere in my mind.

giving a shit == having taste.

giving a shit != perfect.

i recently had a PR which had a comment explaining a change of an import: "// Changed imports to add Foo as it's needed for updated bar()".

apparently the person behind "it" has been a developer for 10 years. couldn't be bothered to remove completely useless "how" comments from a 25 line change (without all the useless comments).

also, i posted on another AI slop thread about taste: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48515463