Developer opposes AI writing but accepts AI coding
Understand this story
A developer publicly explains why he opposes using AI to write articles but does not oppose using AI to write code: code only needs to meet requirements and pass tests; clients and managers do not care what the code itself looks like, provided that human engineers write the specifications and oversee the tests. He believes that writing is thinking, and that if you have not written it yourself, you have not truly thought it through; using an LLM to collect and organize materials is fine, but the finished prose must be rewritten by yourself. He also stresses that humans must be accountable for AI output, and, citing the incident of OpenAI attacking Hugging Face, questions why no one was held responsible.
AI overview based on source reports · Updated 1 hr ago
Coverage timeline
Follow the coverage to explore different perspectives.
- Hacker News AIWhy I'm opposed to AI writing but not AI coding
The author argues he accepts AI-generated code because customers and managers care only that software works, looks good, and is fast and reliable, provided a human engineer writes the specs and enforces the tests, whereas he opposes AI writing because "writing is thinking" and outsourcing it produces slop that doesn't contain the author's thoughts. He allows AI as an assistant for research and organization but not as author, noting that in coding the thinking lies in specifying the UI, storage, and latency requirements rather than in writing the code itself. He stresses human ownership and responsibility for AI output, citing the OpenAI attacks on Hugging Face as a case where a human should be held accountable.
Activity for this story
Not enough continuous observations to show a trend yet.