> I know several people that have difficulty writing but are still f*cking smart. So what, they should refrain from using AI to help them because the AI police says so?

Do what other people do when they cannot do something: don’t do it?

I can’t draw or do art and I don’t have an AI generate art for me so I can LARP as an artist.

You can just… not do things? Nobody is putting a gun to your head to make you write blog posts and post them on HN.

A judgement on the content (product of writing) is not a judgement on people. I dont care if a person uses LLMs in their life – heck, I myself do. But I care if I want to spend my time reading an LLM-written/assisted article or not.

PS that's not an em-dash – this is.

> I know several people that have difficulty writing but are still f*cking smart. So what, they should refrain from using AI to help them because the AI police says so?

The issue is that AI doesn't actually help them; it corrects grammar and removes voice. If you're trying to sound more professional/convincing/engaging, AI usage undermines that.

I agree with your second paragraph - in fact I posted something pretty sympatico a couple hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48887812. But I have such a different reaction to pg's article that I can't fathom why you say that.

They should refrain from using AI if it turns more people off to their ideas than it turns people on to them. There's no need to invent "AI police" as a big baddie here.

A strategy for people who feel they can't write is to just keep it short and sweet. Intelligence is such a potent force. It shines through.

What humans want most is to hear the voices of other humans.

I strongly agree. Humanity only benefits from having more smart ideas published.

Better is simply don't publish slop. If someone spends time refining and editing their idea with AI assistance and are happy with the quality of the finished product then I say go for it.

It's not like all human writers produce content that is worth reading.