Can I ask what makes it read like slop? Because lots of comments here on the style and little on the thinking behind it, which is where I spent my effort.
It seems like a lot of folks arguing about rather or not we need to still read code.
The fact that it's slop. People know it when they read it.
Put Claude and other LLMs away (for coding, writing, everything - block them on your firewall fully) for a few days and then write a blog post from scratch using your own words. No asking for help, comments, editing, nothing. Then compare against this. It'll jump out at you.
> Put Claude and other LLMs away for a few days and then write a blog post from scratch using your own words. No asking for help, comments, editing, nothing.
Ok, but (and this is the whole point) where _should_ we use LLMs? Because your comment could easily be said to someone writing code.
If slop === LLM involved, that's too reductive.
If LLM does all the work, that's also too reductive.
For me, it's mostly in the rhythm and pacing of the sentences -- everything is sooo so punchy. Paragraphs are composed of high-impact, terse sentences. Phrases like "Both perspectives, one person", separated on their own line for dramatic effect. To me it feels like the linguistic equivalent of ultraprocessed food; it's over-engineered for impact and gravitas, to get its point across.
I honestly feel like my actual writing style has drifted towards this, and I'm sure others' have too (although I overused em-dashes before it was uncool!).
But I think that… feeling someone's distinct verbal fingerprint as you read is a signal of authenticity among a sea of lazily generated slop, whereas even a carefully-crafted, thoughtful piece where the final thing is generated by an AI is missing that signal of authenticity.
Right, but adults are assumed to be somewhat more responsible for themselves. This is why we don't let kids (legally) smoke or drink, but we do let adults do so. We expect that adults can, in general, say no, and that children are less able to do so.
But it's not absolute. Some drugs are illegal for adults as well, for example. Why? Because they're too addicting.
So are Instagram and Youtube just nicotine, or are they heroin?
If you type in “Hi, how are you?” and go back and forth between English and LinkedIn Speak a few times, it winds up with “I’d like to sell you something.” Pretty accurate.
I wonder how much of the site was AI-generated. The images definitely are (kids with different numbers of fingers from each other in the same picture lol).
I really want the "Note from the Founder" to be fully AI generated too, image and everything. Our fully unauthentic web of the future has finally arrived!
You could just have read the "about" page. Who cares if there's AI involved, this is a dad who made a thing for his own kids, and opened it up for everyone else. So what if they used AI if it does what they hoped it'd do and their kids like it?
And, crucially, the quality _is_ low. At a bare minimum, the generated safety bulletpoints should be able to anticipate safety concerns with following the generated activities. The people publishing the posts should read them first and check for safety concerns.
The generated posts don't meet this bare minimum. For example, some posts have activities for toddlers involving string or rope, but do not mention the non-obvious strangulation risks. This website should not have been published in this state.
I feel while developers continue to spend their time and energy gatekeeping how people build things, AI is going to continue to enable those people to build what they want. You'd be surprised how little people care about how a product was built and just want it to do the things they need it to do.
The MySpace era internet where anyone can create a page is back and I'm here for it
Quality, security, and code that doesn't fall apart later matter. I don't want
AI slop children books to be a thing. I hear you on AI making it easier for people to build stuff, but calling valid concerns "gatekeeping" is a bit off.
With that said, I really like this site and the approach!
If those things actually mattered they would be rewarded in the "free marketplace of ideas". But they aren't and never have been. The most wealthy companies in the world aren't wealthy because of the quality of their code. That's why literally zero Very Large Organizations prioritize code quality. Marketing matters far more than quality and the budgets demonstrate this. You're just holding it wrong.
You're missing the point. Some slice of the market ignoring quality doesn't make it unimportant. Those companies get burned by tech debt and security holes all the time. Brushing off quality and security as pointless is shortsighted.
The study linked in OP is already a clear counterexample to your point, though. It's clear from all the slop that quality control is low on the priority list of so-called "builders" using AI. They do the first 20% to get a mockup and then decide it's done.
