7 ms·

> This is not a contradiction. It is the reality ... > That is not an upgrade. That is a career identity crisis. This is not X. It is Y. > The trap is ... >

> This is not a contradiction. It is the reality ... > That is not an upgrade. That is a career identity crisis. This is not X. It is Y. > The trap is ... > This gap matters ... > This is not empowerment ... > This is not a minor adjustment... Your typical AI slop rhetorical phrasing. Phrases like: "identity crisis", "burnout machine", "supervision paradox", "acceleration trap", "workload creep" These sound analytical but are lightly defined. They function as named concepts without rigorous definition or empirical grounding. There might be some good arguments in the article, but AI slop remains AI slop.

amelius 7mo ago
N=1. I'm not convinced yet.
- randomtoast 7mo ago
  N=2 form the same author: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/2026/02/24/first-1000-lines-determine-next-100000-ai-coding/ https://www.ivanturkovic.com/2026/02/24/first-1000-lines-det... > AI is an in-context learner, not a standards enforcer. > The AI is not judging your code. It is learning from it. > Speed without structure is not speed. It is borrowed time. > This is not about premature optimization or over-engineering. It is about giving the AI the patterns it needs to work effectively on your behalf. > This is not a theoretical distinction. It is the single most important practical reality of working with AI coding tools in 2026. Its not this, its that. > But here is the part nobody wants to hear: the reverse is equally true. > The result was transformative. > Here is why. If you want I can provide N=3 with the same AI pattern and phrases again.
  - amelius 7mo ago
    AI learned this figure of speech from humans. Even the frequency in which it is used is copied from humans. So you can't really use it to determine if something is written by an AI or not.
    - jsheard 7mo ago
      LLMs might follow the frequencies of the training data in their raw form, but nobody uses raw LLMs, they use models which have been RLHFed to hell and back to bias them towards specific patterns. Then newer models were trained on the output of those RLHFed models, and further RLHFed, and so on, and so on.
      - amelius 7mo ago
        The H in RLHF stands for human. If humans didn't use the expression, then the LLM wouldn't.
        jsheard 7mo ago
        In practice RLHF isn't a survey of every living humans personal style or preferences though, its purpose is to make the model more useful in the eyes of the vendor, mainly by getting cheap third-world labor to nudge the model according to the vendors instructions. You don't get a subservient, sycophantic and "safe" chat interface out of unstructured data without putting your thumb on the scale, hard.
    - randomtoast 7mo ago
      If you think that the article is written by human or that is is unclear, please go ahead. Others here on HN also have pointed out that the author shoots out such lengthy blog posts every day. And you can also see the typical emoji AI slop here: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/services/ https://www.ivanturkovic.com/services/ But I have no issue with your argumentation whatsoever, it is just that I think there is more than sufficient evidence, and you think there is not.
    - aerhardt 7mo ago
      Bro, it reeks of AI.
      - amelius 7mo ago
        I find this a better argument.

amelius 7mo ago

N=1. I'm not convinced yet.

randomtoast 7mo ago
N=2 form the same author: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/2026/02/24/first-1000-lines-determine-next-100000-ai-coding/ https://www.ivanturkovic.com/2026/02/24/first-1000-lines-det... > AI is an in-context learner, not a standards enforcer. > The AI is not judging your code. It is learning from it. > Speed without structure is not speed. It is borrowed time. > This is not about premature optimization or over-engineering. It is about giving the AI the patterns it needs to work effectively on your behalf. > This is not a theoretical distinction. It is the single most important practical reality of working with AI coding tools in 2026. Its not this, its that. > But here is the part nobody wants to hear: the reverse is equally true. > The result was transformative. > Here is why. If you want I can provide N=3 with the same AI pattern and phrases again.
- amelius 7mo ago
  AI learned this figure of speech from humans. Even the frequency in which it is used is copied from humans. So you can't really use it to determine if something is written by an AI or not.
  - jsheard 7mo ago
    LLMs might follow the frequencies of the training data in their raw form, but nobody uses raw LLMs, they use models which have been RLHFed to hell and back to bias them towards specific patterns. Then newer models were trained on the output of those RLHFed models, and further RLHFed, and so on, and so on.
    - amelius 7mo ago
      The H in RLHF stands for human. If humans didn't use the expression, then the LLM wouldn't.
      - jsheard 7mo ago
        In practice RLHF isn't a survey of every living humans personal style or preferences though, its purpose is to make the model more useful in the eyes of the vendor, mainly by getting cheap third-world labor to nudge the model according to the vendors instructions. You don't get a subservient, sycophantic and "safe" chat interface out of unstructured data without putting your thumb on the scale, hard.
  - randomtoast 7mo ago
    If you think that the article is written by human or that is is unclear, please go ahead. Others here on HN also have pointed out that the author shoots out such lengthy blog posts every day. And you can also see the typical emoji AI slop here: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/services/ https://www.ivanturkovic.com/services/ But I have no issue with your argumentation whatsoever, it is just that I think there is more than sufficient evidence, and you think there is not.
  - aerhardt 7mo ago
    Bro, it reeks of AI.
    - amelius 7mo ago
      I find this a better argument.