This is a very good essay when you get past the arrogant tone evident especially at the beginning (is that a form of engagement bait?…)

The argument that communicating an idea is a necessary part of shaping it feels counterintuitive, but it’s really true.

Whether it’s debugging, ‘big’ writing, or even down to the scale of a tweet (RIP Twitter) or an HN comment, I’ve often had the experience of starting to explain a process or opinion and only then discovering that it’s inconsistent or even indefensible.

I suspect (I hope!) that this is something everyone can empathize with.

This just seems weirdly similar to Plato's comments on writing:

"And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.

What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only the semblance of wisdom, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much while for the most part they know nothing. And as men filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to their fellows."

Maybe it simply comes down to how things get used and people are trying to figure out how to use this strange new tool that's available to us.

> Anyone can imagine a programing language that is as fast as C and as dynamic as Lisp, but when you sit down and think through what those goals entail, you realize the design becomes contradictory.

Ignoring the usual LLM rant, that's an interesting observation. Those conflicting goals reflect a problem that comes up quite often - the conflict between efficient volume production and flexibility. It's solvable for programming languages. That's what just-in-time compilers are for. Anything can change, but in practice, most things don't change that often. It's a caching problem.

This hits much harder in manufacturing. An extreme case is what was once called "Detroit automation" - totally specialized lines of machine tools that could make V8 auto engines all day and all night with very little human attention. But that's all they could make. Even switching to a V6 or a different cylinder size required new equipment. The other extreme is 3D printing in metal. It works, but it's so slow it's only useful for high-value items. Space-X makes Raptor engines that way. Nobody makes auto engine blocks that way.

A decade ago, there was a huge enthusiasm for 3D printing for making everything. That's declined. It's become another machine in the machine shop. It works, but if you want to bang out thousands of something, injection molding or stamping is far faster. There's a sizable tooling cost, and then each item is cheap. This is the tradeoff between efficiency and dynamics.

A year or two ago, someone posted a link on HN to a video of someone making a small screw on a lathe. Nobody does that except out of desperate need for a non-standard part. Small screws are made by special purpose machines that bang them out at machine-gun speeds. American culture does not know this any more. Too few Americans today have been inside manufacturing plants. The culture has forgotten where stuff comes from.

> A “thinker” who doesn’t write, who skips the step of “merely” synthesizing their vague thoughts into prose, is not thinking. And then these people give their noise to the AI.

OP is quite good with words and has a high standard and world view. The reason why people use AI to manifest their ideas is probably because they have no other way communicate otherwise.

It's a medium to pack the idea into "something" that represents the idea. It was never about a finished and polished product. It's the sign language for deaf people - a way to show your thoughts.

I'm certain that the people presenting their github repo do put quite some effort (= prompt work) into it, which IS the thinking process. At the end of the day, most developers are introverts that can think very well but have hard times with soft skills.

Everyone wants to be proud of his work, let us don't blame them how the show it off.

> ... I feel contempt for the author, because if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass. Let’s not mince words here. Someone who is so eager to replace themselves, that they would have a machine write in their stead, when the machine can’t even write good yet: what do you call that, if not contemptible? It’s like making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife.

Unfortunately due to how tasteless this passage was, I won’t be reading this or your future writing.

> because if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass

Damn, that is so hurtful. I'm sorry if English is my third language. But for my project documents I would love to read it like a proper documentation so I'm thankful for AI.