hi! Dave here (a human, like you) — sometimes it's easy to forget there's a human on the other side, so I won't hold your thrashing too close.
1.) I've been writing both code and blogs for a long time. The feeling of having a skillset cultivated over a decade plus suddenly feel irrelevant is very real. Nothing about this post is unrepresentative of my perspective on what we're all going through. I don't think it's trash, but everyone is entitled to how they feel.
2.) I am shipping more code and words in the past month than I have in a long time, and yes, the process been AI-assisted — but _not_ AI derived. Anyone who has a personal blog can tell you first hand how it's the easiest channel to let slide, but I am of the camp that I'd rather have my thoughts exist in some form then die in the cavities of my head. This is true for both exploratory product ideas and recent personal writing.
3.) I'm no stranger to long-form articles. I can do it alone. Does that mean I should? I find it super interesting how those in tech are a-ok with AI-assisted programming, but other mediums are shunned. I'm a musician and write my music the old-fashioned way because I personally consider it my art. I probably wouldn't love listening to generative music. Some blogs I'd probably consider my art too. Others? I care more that the idea is represented in public than I do about the way it got there. My process has been dictate the idea -> work with Claude Opus 4.5 to structure it -> revise where the LLM misses the mark -> publish. It's been a force multiplier and I've had more traffic to my website in the past week than I had looking back at least 6 months. Clearly, the ideas resonate with others.
Does that mean I should stop? Is it more prudent that the idea dies due to its inability to climb the priority list? The whole point of these things are to use them as a tool. I'm not even defending this process, but I _am_ exploring what it means to use them effectively.
Good news; more on this will be posted soon, should you opt in(!) to read any further.
Yep, at times, I dictate my thoughts with VoiceInk and have an LLM be an editor on P2 tasks so I can publish instead of have another unfinished idea that never sees the light of day
If you want pre-LLM samples, go ahead and scroll back or check my history—but I've got two kids to take care of and appreciate the publish assist :)
Hey HN – I built this after realizing I was just a human copy-paste machine between users reporting bugs and Claude Code fixing them.
The flow: user speaks or types feedback → AI conversation gathers context → triage decides if actionable → coding agent clones your repo in a sandbox and implements the fix → PR appears in GitHub.
Free tier available, no credit card required to try it. Would love feedback on the voice UX especially.
Happy to answer questions about the architecture (Anthropic Claude Agent SDK, Vercel Sandbox, ElevenLabs for voice).
I implemented Inngest to handle our video migration queues that help move videos off of other platforms into Mux -- complete breeze. Loved the balance between the amount of complexity that's abstracted away, but still enough of a surface API exposed to do some pretty custom domain-specific work. Also the support was top notch, that goes a long way. A++, would use again, genuinely a fan.
Great question. I manually review the T&C, word for word. However, I did think to plop it into ChatGPT this time around as well, mostly out of curiosity, to see if it came to the same conclusion:
> here are the rules for a video contest. are there any gotchas or clauses that could give me the slight edge in winning if i were to submit one or more videos? what do i need to know? [entire ruleset]
The response was accurate but generic. Maybe with some stronger prompting (ie. "what's the number one thing I should prioritize?") it'd be more helpful, but for now, I'd still rather review manually.
You underestimate how much logic takes a backseat when you're feeding an infant at 3am for weeks on end. This project gave me a creative outlet during a time where sanity preservation was paramount.
Heavily artistic, thoughtful, and cinematic, leaning into my passion for the art of telling stories through video that I've kept close for almost 20 years now.
It lost. The judges selected the entries they felt were the best fit. The argument for this contest is that AI enabled _more_ thoughtful art to exist, not less.
I wrote the script, I shot the video, I edited everything — the only place AI was even used in the submissions was to alleviate the pain of tracking down fitting music and re-recording voice overs (both of which I've done manually in the past).
I actually thought the videos would be pretty helpful for a non-handy homeowner.
Sigh… you know, there's a bit of "can't beat 'em, join 'em" happening here, for sure, but let me be optimistic for a second.
This story wouldn't have happened without AI. I genuinely used the tools to tell the story I wanted to tell.
There was something about the way friction was removed with the typical narration round-trips that actually made the storytelling better, easier, less painful… and I truly don't believe anything authentic was lost in that process.
My hope is tools like these can make storytelling easier for everyone.