While it's a bit unusual for a new account submitting only one site to have two posts on the front page, it seems to be a well-written article. I certainly appreciate fresh takes over someone submitting the same Paul Graham or Kalzumeus page that been submitted dozens of times, or over users who submit several times a day, every day (tosh, tomte, etc)
> I will use generative AI for ‘color’ content like pictures and icons due to factors like cost and time, but I don’t intend to use AI for anything else at all other than possibly helping me sort through ideas or summarizing pertinent information from overly long articles.
TFA doesn't read like ChatGPT nonsense and it provides some interesting discussion. It looks like it's just a new technical blog someone created and is earnestly sharing with HN.
Read the linked post, it's completely generic and repetitive and 'possibly helping me sort through ideas' is doing a lot of lifting that the author obviously isn't.
If you look around right now, it seems generative AI is all the rage. There is a growing pool of people now out there who:
[bulleted list]
Lets think about what generative AI can do right now and what this could mean for web content and organically generated search traffic going forward:
Right now, generative AI can:
[bulleted list]
Lets take a look at the web for a second. Websites are what? Text. Images. Sometimes videos or music and sounds. Sometimes websites are dynamic and interactive, like web applications. All of these things can and will be created using generative AI. The use of generative AI to save time creating these things will increase exponentially over time.
This is original writing the way trying to meet the word or page count for your middle school homework is original writing.
Is it a community-determined "best practice" to prioritise reviewing a contributor's history over reading their contribution and upvoting/flagging according to its content?
