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.
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 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.
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.
Laurie Voss argues that while the cost of writing code has fallen dramatically, the costs of reviewing, fixing, and operating software are rising and will continue to do so. She emphasizes that the true expense lies in understanding user needs, precisely defining requirements, and ensuring a pleasant user experience—costs that are unique to each software product and do not scale with reuse. As software demand grows without an upper limit, these user‑centric costs will dominate the overall development effort.
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.