They’ve been developing git and GitHub for over a decade. It really isn’t surprising they have made thousands of internally available repos. They probably have hundreds just for running automated tests alone.
Because writing is a process suited to some minds more than others. And if your bar to receiving an idea is that it came from a competent writer then you’ll be limited to ideas that reflect a certain way of thinking (and one many mistakenly conflate with intelligence).
Conversation is a different process that may be suited to other types of thinking. And so on.
It’s true that LLMs can enable unoriginal and shallow thinking to be expressed with a false veneer of original thought. But it does not follow that all LLM-written text is the result of laziness nor that it is without value.
I’m just suggesting, come with an open mind rather than judging the whole thing based on a gut reaction to style. That reliance on a gut stylistic reaction is itself lazy and has led many an intellectual community into echo chambers of groupthink.
I don't understand why so many of these comments HN is getting are so fixated on writing style. I appreciate that stylistic traits associated with AI-written text are often indicative of contentless slop. But lots of people also write like that. To moan about writing style without even considering the value of the content just sounds cranky to me.
Anyway, I enjoyed reading the experiment, and the starting premise, and the embracing of a fairly mundane outcome. Reminds me of running various generative systems and looking for emergent states.