There is no way AI is making you 10x more productive at the current moment. And if AI is supposed to work well, then that doesn't mean you'll need to put in 10x more hours (because the AI will seamlessly and magically make that effortless). So you'll still be working the same hours even in that scenario.
Overall, I would say, if you want to pursue serious writing, please do it without have LLM generate everything. This blog is just a pattern of vomit-inducing AI-writing cliches and cites nothing of value.
In fact, I went through all your other AI-generated posts and created a meta prompt that you can just paste into ChatGPT and have one of these articles come out, saving you the time to be 10x more or whatever.
---
Write a short essay (800–1,200 words) in a reflective, intellectually restless tone that blends personal observation with a contrarian insight about technology, work, progress, or human behavior.
Constraints and style:
* Open with a concrete hook: a quote, anecdote, tweet, or cultural reference that feels slightly overfamiliar.
* Use clear, confident prose. No emojis. No motivational clichés. No listicles.
* The essay should feel like thinking out loud, not teaching.
* Avoid moralizing. Let implications emerge implicitly.
* Assume an intelligent, online reader who is tired of hype but curious.
Core structure:
1. Start with a relatable observation or irritation about modern life, tech discourse, or self-improvement culture.
2. Introduce a somewhat unexpected but real tech or economics idea (e.g., Jevons paradox, Goodhart’s law, Conway’s law, scaling laws, second-order effects of AI tooling, coordination problems, invisible infrastructure, option value, etc.).
3. Use that idea to reframe a dominant narrative people take for granted.
4. Explore at least one uncomfortable implication for individuals or society.
5. End without a neat conclusion. Close with an open tension, question, or quiet reversal.
Content rules:
* Cite or reference one specific person, company, paper, or concept from tech or economics, but don’t over-explain it.
* No product reviews or tutorials.
* No explicit calls to action.
* No “the future will…” certainty language.
Voice:
* Calm, slightly skeptical, observant.
* Curious rather than cynical.
* Written like a public notebook entry, not a polished op-ed.
The goal is not to persuade, but to sharpen how the reader sees something they already thought they understood.
7777777phil•1h ago
Thanks, I will use this prompt going forward. On a more serious note, I'm aware that putting my writing "out there" potentially exposes me to all kinds of scrutiny, so I appreciate you taking the time to read through all of my work and I can only encourage you to write something yourself - I'll be happy to read it.
homo_economicus•56m ago
I don't think this is the platform for such ad hominem attacks! It's fine to disagree with someone's opinions and / or style but no need of accusing them of "vomit-inducing AI-writing". I just went through some of OPs posts maybe you can leave your opinions here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46646939
altmanaltman•1h ago
Overall, I would say, if you want to pursue serious writing, please do it without have LLM generate everything. This blog is just a pattern of vomit-inducing AI-writing cliches and cites nothing of value.
In fact, I went through all your other AI-generated posts and created a meta prompt that you can just paste into ChatGPT and have one of these articles come out, saving you the time to be 10x more or whatever.
---
Write a short essay (800–1,200 words) in a reflective, intellectually restless tone that blends personal observation with a contrarian insight about technology, work, progress, or human behavior.
Constraints and style:
* Open with a concrete hook: a quote, anecdote, tweet, or cultural reference that feels slightly overfamiliar. * Use clear, confident prose. No emojis. No motivational clichés. No listicles. * The essay should feel like thinking out loud, not teaching. * Avoid moralizing. Let implications emerge implicitly. * Assume an intelligent, online reader who is tired of hype but curious.
Core structure:
1. Start with a relatable observation or irritation about modern life, tech discourse, or self-improvement culture. 2. Introduce a somewhat unexpected but real tech or economics idea (e.g., Jevons paradox, Goodhart’s law, Conway’s law, scaling laws, second-order effects of AI tooling, coordination problems, invisible infrastructure, option value, etc.). 3. Use that idea to reframe a dominant narrative people take for granted. 4. Explore at least one uncomfortable implication for individuals or society. 5. End without a neat conclusion. Close with an open tension, question, or quiet reversal.
Content rules:
* Cite or reference one specific person, company, paper, or concept from tech or economics, but don’t over-explain it. * No product reviews or tutorials. * No explicit calls to action. * No “the future will…” certainty language.
Voice:
* Calm, slightly skeptical, observant. * Curious rather than cynical. * Written like a public notebook entry, not a polished op-ed.
The goal is not to persuade, but to sharpen how the reader sees something they already thought they understood.
7777777phil•1h ago
homo_economicus•56m ago