The article "How To Write With An LLM" by Thomas Ptacek explains how to use large language models (LLMs) as copyeditors rather than writing assistants. Ptacek advocates a strict rule: never use any single word or phrase suggested by an LLM, treating it as intellectual personal protective equipment. He shares his own practice of using LLMs for fact‑checking, spelling, grammar, and occasional thesaurus help, and provides a screenshot of his personal LLM copyediting tool along with a prompt to help readers build their own.
There are no lossless transformations of natural-language text Sophie Alpert shares her "internal policy on acceptable use of AI writing by engineers". It's a short read (supporting its own recommendations) and really good.
But then users start to report a weird bug. It's the 4th time your team has been trying to fix it.
The article discusses a shift in code review practices, moving from a final gate to continuous review that functions like spellcheck during coding. It highlights how the Claude Code team uses the Claude AI to catch routine mistakes before human reviewers intervene, allowing developers to focus on higher-level issues. The piece references insights from Addy Osmani, Morgan Westlee Lunt, and Qing Wang on this evolving approach.
The article discusses how production code generated by Claude, Anthropic’s AI, should meet higher standards than human-written code. Anthropic enforces this through numerous guardrails such as lint rules, extensive testing, Claude-driven end‑to‑end tests, daily fuzzers, automated code and security reviews, and automated refactoring. These measures aim to prevent the code from becoming difficult to maintain.
Simon Willison reflects on three blog posts that shaped his professional outlook: Joel Spolsky’s *The Law of Leaky Abstractions*, Will Larson’s 2018 article *Migrations: the sole scalable fix to tech debt*, and Charity Majors’ *The Engineer/Manager Pendulum*. Each piece offered a distinct lesson—recognizing hidden complexities in abstractions, embracing migrations as a core engineering skill, and validating the fluid movement between engineering and management roles. These insights collectively encouraged Willison to deepen his technical understanding, prioritize migration work, and feel empowered to shift career tracks without fear.
Simon Willison reflects on the long history of flawed software development, noting that the proliferation of bad code over the past three decades is now being penalized by the universe. He cites Armin Ronacher’s perspective that the rise of AI, while entertaining, has amplified the consequences of these past mistakes. The piece underscores the growing importance of addressing security and reliability in the age of generative AI.
The post critiques the use of AI-generated scripts for TikTok and YouTube, arguing that such content lacks a distinct voice and genuine opinions. It highlights common AI patterns—such as generic statements, the rule of three, and staccato punctuation—that make the writing feel shallow and unoriginal. The author emphasizes that these traits reveal the absence of authentic personal perspective in the content.
The article reflects on the shift in perspective after the release of Fable, a new model that promised to solve many coding challenges at a comparable or lower cost. Prior to Fable, developers felt it was pointless to invest heavily in coding tools or context strategies, as newer models would likely render them obsolete. However, Fable’s performance was so impressive that, despite its high cost, it prompted a reevaluation of how work was distributed across different models such as Opus, 5.6, K3, and GLM.
Jake Boggan, a former graph theory enthusiast who spent 24 years working on Barnette's Conjecture, expresses a mix of disappointment and sadness upon learning that the problem has been solved. He recounts his time studying in Budapest, his extensive work on the conjecture, and his brief moment of feeling he had solved it last summer. Boggan’s comment reflects the emotional impact of seeing a long‑standing personal challenge resolved by others.
The article discusses Meta’s new AI system, Muse, which offers each user a persistent Linux VM in the cloud and is marketed as an easy-to-use, consumer‑friendly agentic AI. It highlights the system’s technical innovation and the company’s packaging as a cute mascot, while noting that users may not fully grasp the power and potential danger of such an advanced tool, especially when running it locally on a Mac.
Simon Willison reflects on the emotional impact of AI tools that can produce code quickly, noting that many developers experience an initial sense of disheartenment. He argues that recognizing the shift from coding to higher‑level problem solving allows experienced engineers to leverage new tools and add greater value. Willison emphasizes that software engineering has always faced rapid change, so adapting to AI is part of the profession’s ongoing evolution.