I disagree. Not everyone has a good writing style. In those instances I think it is fair to default to llm recommendation. We may be allergic to it, but we saw one formulaic response too many ( though admittedly it does raise a question of whether HN was the intended audience for it ).

In any event, not all of us have a unique writing style worth preserving just like not all of us can write clear and clean code. Just saying.

(TL;DR Can we just judge written works by their actual content?)

I’m really in the “who gives a shit” camp on something like this. A lot of people probably have an LLM punch up a blog post. It is good at turning bullet points and notes into prose, fixing run-ons, etc. Maybe I’m naive but I trust that the kind of person who posts a clearly noncommercial post like this on HN gives a crap enough that they read the final draft and confirmed it isn’t inaccurate.

This pearl-clutching about the mere use of AI regardless of how responsible or appropriate the use is, seems like a professor in 1985 throwing an essay back in a student’s face as “this was obviously printed from a computer and not typewritten like a PROPER essay! I can tell just by looking at it!”