Top
Best
New

Posted by speckx 10/27/2025

It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts(blog.pabloecortez.com)
1300 points | 540 commentspage 7
corporat 10/27/2025|
The most thoughtful critique of this post isn’t that AI is inherently bad—but that its use shouldn’t be conflated with laziness or cowardice.

Fact: Professional writers have used grammar tools, style guides, and even assistants for decades. AI simply automates some of these functions faster. Would we say Hemingway was lazy for using a typewriter? No—we’d say he leveraged tools.

AI doesn’t create thoughts; it drafts ideas. The writer still curates, edits, and imbues meaning—just like a journalist editing a reporter’s notes or a designer refining Photoshop output. Tools don’t diminish creativity—they democratize access to it.

That said: if you’re outsourcing your thinking to AI (e.g., asking an LLM to write your thesis without engaging), then yes, you’ve lost something. But complaining about AI itself misunderstands the problem.

TL;DR: Typewriters spit out prose too—but no one blames writers for using them.

rideontime 10/27/2025|
For transparency, what role did AI serve in drafting this comment?
corporat 10/27/2025||
AI was used to analyze logical fallacies in the original blog post. I didn’t use it to draft content—just to spot the straw man, false dilemma, and appeal-to-emotion tactics in real time.

Ironically, this exact request would’ve fit the blog’s own arguments: "AI is lazy" / "AI undermines thought." But since I was using AI as a diagnostic tool (not a creative one), it doesn’t count.

Self-referential irony? Maybe. But at least I’m being transparent. :)

rideontime 10/29/2025|||
I'd merely noticed that your comment mimicked the writing style of popular LLMs. Guessing you spend a lot of time with them?
philipwhiuk 10/29/2025|||
[flagged]
deadbabe 10/27/2025||
If you’re going to AI generate your blog, the least you could do is use a fine tuned LLM that matches your style. Most people just toss a prompt into GPT 5 and call it a day.
LeoPanthera 10/27/2025||
Anyone can make AI generated content. It requires no effort at all.

Therefore, if I or anyone else wanted to see it, I would simply do it myself.

I don't know why so many people can't grasp that.

the_af 10/27/2025||
What amazes me is that some people think I want to read AI slop in their blog that I could have generated by asking ChatGPT directly.

Anyone can access ChatGPT, why do we need an intermediary?

Someone a while back shared, here on HN, almost an entire blog generated by (barely touched up) AI text. It even had Claude-isms like "excellent question!", em-dashes, the works. Why would anyone want to read that?

CuriouslyC 10/27/2025||
In that case, I'd say maybe you didn't have the wisdom to ask the question in the first place? And maybe you wouldn't know the follow up questions to ask after that? And if the person who produced it took a few minutes to fact check, that has value as well.
the_af 10/27/2025||
It's seldom the case that AI slop requires widsom to ask, or is fact-checked in any depth other than cursory. Cursory checking of AI-slop has effectively zero value.

Or do you remember when Facebook groups or image communities were flooded with funny/meme AI-generated images, "The Godfather, only with Star Wars", etc? Thank you, but I can generate those zero-effort memes myself, I also have access to GenAI.

We truly don't need intermediaries.

CuriouslyC 10/27/2025||
You don't need human intermediates either, what's the point of teachers? You can read the original journal articles just fine. In fact what's the point of any communication that isn't journal articles? Everything else is just recycled slop.
the_af 10/27/2025||
No, that's a false equivalence.

> Everything else is just recycled slop.

No, not everything is slop. AI-slop is slop. The term was coined for a reason.

Everyone can ask the AI directly, unlike accessing journals. Journals are intermediaries because you don't have direct access to the source (or cannot conduct the experiment yourself).

Everyone has access to AI at the slop "let's generate blog posts and articles" level we're discussing here.

A better analogy than teachers is: I ask a teacher a random question, and then I tell it to you with almost no changes, with the same voice if the teacher (and you also have access to the same teacher). Why? What value do I add? You can ask the teacher directly. And doubly so because what I'm asking is not some flash of insight, it's random crap instead.

dewey 10/27/2025||
There's blogs that are not meant to be read, but are just content marketing to be found by search engines.
yalogin 10/28/2025||
This is unavoidable. Individual blogs may not use AI but companies that live on user engagement will absolutely use them and churn out all types of content
fullshark 10/28/2025|
I avoid it by not reading open web blogs. Eventually open web message boards (like this one) will be fully contaminated as well and I'll move to discord or group chats I suppose.
nazgu1 10/27/2025||
I agree, but if I would have to type one most insulting things with AI is scraping data without consent to train models, so people no longer enjoy blog posting :(
johanam 10/27/2025||
AI generated text like a plume of pollution spreading through the web. Little we can do to keep it at bay. Perhaps transparency is the answer?
jeromie 10/29/2025||
I had to go take a two-hour walk to calm down after my boss sent me a project proposal that was just ChatGPT gobbledygook.
kirito1337 11/3/2025||
It's insulting to read any AI generated content.
jquaint 10/27/2025|
> Do you not enjoy the pride that comes with attaching your name to something you made on your own? It's great!

This is like saying a photographer shouldn't find the sunset they photographed pretty or be proud of the work, because they didn't personally labor to paint the image of it.

A lot more goes into a blog post than the actual act of typing the context out.

Lazy work is always lazy work, but its possible to make work you are proud of with AI, in the same way you can create work you are proud of with a camera

More comments...