I wonder whether the slides look so much like shitposts because the image-gen AI has ingested so many from scraping the internet. Like “Goose value 71” overlaid on an image of a goose is an image I can truly only ever imagine having seen as a shitpost prior to GenAI.
The thread is going very well, someone decided reading was hard and that asking claude was easier
Highlights:
So I asked ChatGPT 5 Thinking, Claude Sonnet 4.5 with Extra Thinking, and Claude Opus 4.1 with Extra Thinking whether the article linked to multiple times provides any hard evidence of DHH being anything implied by the name-calling or by the outright name-calling seen in this thread.
Turns out the machines say there is no such evidence. It’s just an opinion piece.
There is one narrow case in which I’ve found the compiler analogy useful: explaining my frustrations with LLM-assisted design/architecture doc generation. Here, it’s useful because handing someone a design document that was output by an LLM is a lot like handing someone a binary and asking them for a code review.
I’d much rather work with whatever disorganized soup of thoughts someone fed into the machine, because those at least contain intent, rather than a document that actively obscures what the designer wanted in a barrage of detail.