“You didn’t write it, why should I read it?”

Seems like a perfectly reasonable stance.

I'm very sure, even the first two paragraphs reek of LLM. It's the style, not the content.

It’s definitely got AI tells, and I understand the objection - it’s hard to tell the difference between slop (written without review or direction, meant to fill space or present a simulacra of information) and actual informational content. With this article, it was clear that the author wanted to describe what problems they had and how they overcame those problems, and it was concise and I could tell it was reviewed so the content seemed trustworthy to me. I understand that some people have pretty high standards - if you don’t have the time to type out all of the code yourself one character at a time, then write stylish, interesting prose about it one letter at a time, if all you want to do is solve interesting problems and communicate how you solved them, you should shut up until you get good. Me, I am also imperfect and lazy, so I don’t care to demand style points or demonstrations of perspicacity from others.

Thanks for posting this, OP, I thought it was interesting.

It's easy to tell imo in part because of how terse the sentences are:

`Obvious in hindsight.`

`The clock never jumps.`

`No lookahead, no undo.`

`A real kick pattern is not a clock.`

>Larger point: I am so sick of HN comment sections filling up with obligatory comments speculating about whether a post is AI-written.

Gotta disagree wholeheartedly with that - using AI to write for you is really fucking annoying as a reader. It screams to me that the "author" feels the reader's time is worthless, and it homogenizes language in a way that is troubling to say the least.

If someone keeps serving feces, the right response isn't to complain about them complaining about having to eat crap.