If you need an LLM to tell you how to write then you’re a fraud and a hack. It’s a skill, get good or fuck off, if you want to learn then you have to fucking learn, otherwise you’re just a plagiarist who doesn’t know shit.
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
683 points (98.2% liked)
Fuck AI
7069 readers
1821 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If she was taking about just a proof read, then I'm okay with it. But I don't believe she is taking about proof reading. AI should be nowhere near the creative process.
If you need to proof read something you can do it with spell check in your weird processor and an understanding of grammar.
This is an unpopular opinion, but as someone who builds stuff from scratch, this is the same feeling i get when someone holds up a 3d printed item and goes “i made this”
If they've created the 3d file themselves that seems like an accurate thing to say, as opposed to just printing something off the internet. Obviously the amount of effort and perhaps artistic expression is gonna differ, but like, I think most printed stuff only exists to serve a specific function anyway
If you’re going to send me the output of some LLM, do me a favour and just send me the prompt instead. Otherwise I’m going to spend as much time reading it as you spent writing it.
LLMs are stochastic. If I send you the prompt instead of the output, then there's no guarantee that the output you get will be correct. If I generate the text myself, I can verify that it's correct before sending it off.
The problem is that as the recipient, you have no idea whether I've even read the output, let alone verified or understood it. And with the low barrier to entry, it's much more likely that you're getting unverified slop. Sharing the prompt isn't going to help with that.
Edit: sorry, posted before I finished writing.
Of course it will be correct: the prompt contains the idea you wanted to convey. I’ll read that and know what you meant. Feeding that prompt into an LLM doesn’t add any new ideas from you, it just inflates the text like a balloon and gussies it up with useless window dressing.
If anything, it obscures what you meant!
The only people who would use AI for creative work are those who are unwilling to take the time to become good at it or are incapable of doing so.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I've shouted from the rooftops before many times there is nothing creative from AI writing. It just repeats the same terse, sentence structures! AI had never fallen in love, grieved, or inspired before!
The best way I have found to make sense of why some people are so enthousiastic to shill for AI, is to see AI as yet another product that preys upon people's insecurities. In this case it's maybe the worst insecurity of all: feeling like you're less intelligent than other people.
Taking that insecurity as the through-line, this kind of shilling makes perfect sense IMO. It's essentially a form of self soothing, saying "everyone is or will be using this, it's not just me!".
Some of these fanatics are utterly arrogant greedy narcissists with no redeeming qualities at all.
Explosion of creativity? Do you mean the laziest, untalented, uninteresting people on the planet finally being able to vomit their stupid ideas out into the world in the style of the greatest human artists of history?
The new kind of writer's block
Pointless sidebar: Westworld (Season 1) uses a player piano as a metaphor for AI.
And player piano is what they should have said. Don't besmirch electric/Rhodes pianos, they're awesome.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well said. I swear I'm not being biased just because I loved playing his music on piano
view more: next ›