The secret flag of content

I don’t have any fun when I use LLMs to write. It may have perceived utility: popping out a LinkedIn article or two everyday. But I bet no one is actually reading. It’s a strip mall for a thumb stroll.  

LLMs suck at writing. The summaries that LLMs give with the “Deep Research” are so poor in quality that I start to skim it. Yes, I skim the thing that is already a summary. 

Let’s do a small experiment using the  Harry G. Frankfurt Essay On Bullshit: 

Here are HGF’s opening lines: 

“One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share.”

Now here is ChatGPT o3, with the advantage of having HGF in the training data and extra contextualizing from me “theory of bullshit”: 

Prompt: write me an introductory paragraph on the theory of bullshit 

 Result: “Bullshit isn’t just lying gone sloppy; it’s a distinct communicative strategy built on indifference to truth. Where the liar knows the facts and works to conceal or invert them, the bullshitter treats truth-value as irrelevant raw material—selecting, mixing, or inventing claims to achieve an effect (status, alignment, vibe) rather than to inform. The result is epistemic pollution: signals that…”

Look! It’s the secret flag of “content”:  “Blah isn’t just X; Blah is Y”.

I cannot assimilate this, it definitely can’t help me synthesize anything. There is always better human writing even if it is poorly written. It has a certain aliveness, and that aliveness is contagious enthusiasm. Vibe coding I can understand, you can see bad output in the final result. Vibe coding still manages to change something in my mind: knowing what I don’t want. 

I don’t mind people using AI at all, I use it alllll the time. Writing with LLMs is no just fun. All this prompting and almost nothing changes in my mind. When an AI rearranges your thoughts it does not rearrange your brain.