I want to talk about what I have notice on the platform and want to address what we all have been thinking about, but not really talked as much on ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Thanks for the shout out @francistrdev! Been doing everything I can to prevent people from joining the "dark side" of just AI-prompting and blindly clicking "Accept all changes". Then ending up not batting an eye on the 500+ lines of AI code changes (because who in their sane mind would). Banger of a post as always!
Thanks Elmar and I am glad you are learning in this age since people can fall easily on using AI too much, but we also want to make sure we can utilize the tool that helps us while also still keeping us in check of our learning!
Lowkey, I was never into writing, so I had a friend run my blog. He wrote everything, hit publish, and I'm pretty sure it was all AI-generated. Looking back, it just had no soul.
Then I came across your articles... and now I actually want to write my own blog. Never thought I'd say that because I've literally never written one myself. Thanks for making me want to give it a real shot.
Thanks Divya. Writing is important, and it doesn't need to be professional at all! Everyone has different writing skills and everyone can connect to each other based on writing alone! I would prefer seeing many different writing styles than one monotonic style because it shows me that someone out there exist.
My hope for you, and for everyone on dev.to, is to be able to find someone they can connect with. I found @codingwithjiro based on my journey on dev.to and Virtual Coffee. Engagements comes alone naturally and there isn't a need to get "popular" right away. The best influencers, comes from the people who makes a positive difference.
Looking forward to it :D
Elmar seems like a really nice person. I think I've read a few of their articles, and I really liked them. I'm also happy that I got to meet both of you legends. Thanks! :D
We are grateful! Hopefully we will see you in Virtual Coffee!
Maybe I should join it tomorrow.
OMG, YES! I really do not understand this trend for generating comments... and I see a lot of this, especially here on DEV. I was always wondering about the reason for this, and could only think of not being a native and having some non-native complexes. As much as I can understand this (I always have a feeling I cannot express as much as I'd like in English), I'd still prefer to read a comment with typos and non-perfect grammar, rather than a repetitive AI-generated reply. We all have different styles, different vocabulary, and ways of expression; it's such a pity to lose it for AI.
RIGHT?! I don't know maybe the dead internet theory is actually true and the web is crawling with AI comment generating bots instead. But trust me, people know who is genuine and who is not, at least on my perspective. If you scroll down 5-10 articles, the rest are AI puke (and it is painfully obvious nowadays too).
Yeah, and instead of exchanging our own thoughts, we are drowning in em-dashes, verbose prose, and comments written with words no one would ever use in real life. I even caught myself appreciating typos in text and thinking, "oooh, this person didn't use AI" 😂
em-dashes also occur in google translate and others, so this is not an indicator
Em dashes aren't usual the indicator by its own, but the tone and structure of the comment gives it away. You could easily hide the structure, but people aren't going to spend time with that.
For @klaudiagrz, I have no idea why people AI generate comments either and that really do need to stop in my opinion. I can understand professionalism, but there are MANY ways to do that. I have a watch dog list of people who not only AI generate comments, but compare to the vast amount of comments they did, they are all VERY similar in terms of not only structure, but the theme such as promotion and such.
For @codingwithjiro, can't really do anything about it other than put it to low quality. Even that, I am outnumbered unless we all effortlessly push quality content that drag those articles down to the shadow realm.
Glad you guys are having a good thread here lol.
You know, there's been a recent trend of spam emails mentioning dev.to, like "I saw your profile." It's weird, but funny. The goal is to promote some AI crap. But it has something in common with AI comments on dev.to. Maybe it's (comments) a ploy to get to the top of dev.to rankings and attract the attention of popular sites (so your spam gets more views)? btw this is a good topic for an article. what do you think?
Love this post! I never use AI for comments, but I regularly use it for writing — anywhere from "write it for me" to "just finish it already". But I also invested heavily in writing custom skills so AI could emulate my own writing style. Imperfect, but better than generating nonsense at scale. The most helpful for me is the ADHD-style "quiz me then organize coherently" instruction I set up for Claude. I don't always write it myself anymore, but if my name is on it then its always my idea.
Hey Ashley. Thanks for sharing. I am curious on "invested heavily in writing custom skills so AI could emulate my own writing style." How often do you check yourself to see if you have a different writing style compare to what you tell the AI to do?
That's usually tricky because I can tell the AI that "I did this" that follows up with a topic I do not know. It's the same way as saying "I have ideas, but I don't want to write it. I will let my friend write it". Sure, it is YOUR idea, but it can also adds on to the idea that the friend has. What's interesting is that depending on your usage (telling the AI to refine over and over again), it tends to drift away from the idea you initially had, which leads to the idea you are not familiar with nor it's no longer the idea you have in mind.
Hope this makes sense. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts about this :D
I'm consistently updating that particular writing skill with words and phrases that are mine, especially. Also, I always start with an outline and in the case that AI is writing more than me, then I'll let it compile a list of questions to prompt me with as we go. Then it cleans up my answers and rewords some of it to make sense. If any refinement is done afterwards, then its done against that original outline to minimize drift. This is one of my much earlier posts on the topic that AI wrote for me using a much less refined version of that skill, which does tend to sand off the edges over time. Compared to not having one at all, though, it makes writing with AI much easier to deal with.
I call things bad not because they are objectively bad, but because they cease to be interesting. A favorite game becomes boring, WinRar gets annoying with its 40-day period.
My situation is completely the opposite - CAN THIS DUDE EXPLAIN TO THE AI WHAT IT WANTS?! I think I fall into this category. I've seen a lot of memes about people politely talking to AI, but I'm the complete opposite - I constantly insult it, hoping it will somehow understand my meaning better (it didn't help).
For me, the big problem is that the AI is so stupid. Or maybe I have an extra chromo... ahem...
Assessing product quality is difficult because quality isn't just about functionality. At least in mobile games, thanks to advertising and rapid development, content can be considered good because it generates a lot of profit with minimal effort 🫰 ..Of course, you need to invest a few thousand in marketing, but how can you do that? A business without investment isn't a business.
Hey Ember. I think at this point people can explain to the AI without trying. It only takes them 5 mins to the point where they get the idea based on their experience using it. Sometimes, I just do all caps by stating "DO NOT CHANGE THE FUNCTIONALITY. KEEP AS IS" lol.
I found to be unforunate, especially in Y Combinator Startups where they get funding because their project revolves around AI. I have heard about this a lot and it does drift away about quality and more about hype. A video you may or may not seen before capture this:
Simple one rule for good content Write to express, not to impress.
Good simple rule! Without expression in writing, it's just simply informative (which is fine) but if you have that as a common writing practice on a blog site, it sets boring. Will love to see more blogs that are expressive in some way for human connection, especially for developers!
Indeed. From a technical writing perspective, the 7 Cs of effective communication (Clear, Concise, Concrete, Correct, Coherent, Complete, and Courteous) naturally encourage the use of simple, lightweight words, but they are only one part of producing high-quality content.
It's a good reminder to know your C's for me at least. I tend to just "ball" and go from there (which it's not efficient in writing, but I ensure to get my points across). However, I do love simplicity in a sense and I feel like if we were to express in a simple way AND being able to get our points across in a professional manner, I believe we would be a more welcoming community in all skill levels. Yes, it's important to know technical terms, but no need to over do it. A good balance is key.
Typing effort alone isn't the measure of good software. 🧐.
In threads like this, once I admit I rely heavily on AI for syntax, my guess is 99% of senior developers would take me for a fugazee.
That won't stop me, though. Every generation has used the best tools available. I wrote about that recently. I know how much time I've spent struggling with syntax, and I've accepted that it simply isn't where my strengths lie.
I have a great deal of respect for the senior developers here. Without people like them, AI assistants wouldn't even exist. In a way, they built the greatest junior developer ever created.
I'm not against learning syntax. AI isn't perfect; it misses things I know are possible, which pushes me to write better prompts and get the syntax right.
Just as society needs mechanics, artists, doctors, farmers, and countless other professions, software can also have people whose strength is solving problems rather than remembering every language rule.
I know we all want the best for the community and the future of software—but who really wants the worst? There should be room for people who enjoy mastering syntax and for people who use AI as a tool to build.
If everyone is expected to rely solely on syntax, then what exactly are AI coding assistants for?
Sorry I had to delete the comment for clarification. On my notification, I saw "Typing effort alone isn't the measure of good software. 🧐.". My fault lol.
Now seeing this, it seems you are confusing Syntax in writing. Using AI to correct Syntax makes sense and I do encourage using AI to clean up the codebase in a way as long as you initially built it yourself.
Syntax, in the way I see it, is just grammar. Nothing wrong with correcting grammar using AI since it tends to be the most common and more effective. The problem because it we go down the rabbit hole of using AI beyond the syntax. Maybe at first, you are fixing Syntax issues, then AI starts to ask you if they would love to "refractor the code". We have to be careful on how much we use AI because of those followups. If we fall into this spiral, we loose that ownership and we lose on what we have created so far. If anything, it will lead us to a forest we cannot recognize anymore.
Overall, Syntax in coding and "Syntax" in writing is different. If anything, it's best to learn the syntax rules at a MINIMUM. Learning is the best thing of anyone. I want to learn in the event I asked myself "What happens if AI doesn't exist? Can I still do what I do best?".
Obviously, people will judge you and can't you blame them? AI has been increasingly becoming unpopular and it's been reported that companies are back pedaling AI usage based on how much developers are using that cost more than a developer salary, which is expected but crazy. Not everyone acts like this though. I added a transparent note in one of my articles that I used AI to enhance the image quality and no one complain. If people are judging you about your use of AI, I would question further of how that became to be in the first place.
Another thing to point out, great syntax doesn't mean good software. Good software provides not only usefulness, but being able to know how it is built in the first place. If you Vibe Code a project and call it good software, I would back pedal that on many factors when considering what is "good" software. Is it Secure? Is my Data Safe? Is it accessible? If something breaks, will I be the one to fix it? Is it following best practices in terms of written code? There is so much variables that AI can't really cover and it is something I learned overtime.
Hope this makes sense! Let me know if anything.
When I mentioned syntax I wasn't referring to article writing as much as java() HTML</> & @media_css lol 🤣
Oh no lol I got it. I saw your edits and apologies for that. Again, I only saw the initial comment and not the edited version. This is what I saw at first lol:
Now rereading this thread, I confused myself. My bad again D:
The reply still stands minus the part where I thought you got confused on Syntax in Writing. TL;DR Use AI as a tool, not relying to the point where you asked the AI "How to write strings in python" or a similar sense if anything.
Also also, forgot to answer your burning question:
AI Coding Assistants is mainly to help you navigate large codebases, which is great if you are contributing to Open Source because it tells you what parts of the feature is located. It will save manual work.
I tend to use AI Assistants on that and create a simple template based on what I am working on. For example, I use AI assist to create an example Unit test based on the codebase and what it's built upon. That way, it's easy to refer to and captures all the cases I need to build my own without having to rely on AI as much. In this case, I am still learning since I only use AI to help me navigate the codebase to find the files while also not relying to the point where it doesn't give me the "complete answer" but gives me the idea of how it is built.
Sorry for the longest thread. I'm tired and my brain is fried lol. Hopefully, this answers everything!
I care less about whether a draft touched AI and more about whether the author can answer the second question. If they can explain the tradeoff, name what they checked, and say where they are unsure, there is a person behind the piece. If they can't, the polish is mostly camouflage.
Agree and kind of disagree. Yes, it is important that they can be able to explain what you mention which is the "tradeoff, name what they checked, and say where they are unsure". However, it is important to not use AI too much to the point where it doesn't sound like your voice at all.
For example, you can explain React in MANY different ways. There isn't one "true" way to expressing what React is. Some people explain in simple terms while others explain in professional terms. Either way, the way you write is the way you express.
I agree, which is why I encourage for everyone, including myself, to put more thought in comments and in post especially. I think of it as if someone gave me a piece of work, I start to question not only to challenge the author, but to also be able to learn about what they have written. What makes content good is if there is meaningful engagement between both parties, not just an author getting 1 million likes with comments that is the synonym of "Good work".
Thanks for sharing Reid!
The part I keep running into is that "good" isn't one axis. A piece can be factually clean but tonally off, or engaging but subtly wrong, and a single quality score collapses all of that into one number that hides the disagreement. I've had better luck scoring a few named dimensions separately and only then combining them, because it makes the failure legible. How are you handling cases where two reviewers, human or model, split on the same piece?
Thanks Karitk and great question!
I would love to have some clarification, but based on my understanding from your comment, here is what I think:
I do agree that it's not in a single axis. Everyone has different preferences on what makes the content "good" such as your current skill level, understanding of the posts, etc. A person who is a professional will see a professional article as Good while the beginner person will see it as "not good" because it is simply to difficult to understand.
When it comes to AI writing, the way I see it is repetition in terms of tone. You can write any topic as you like with AI, but the key difference isn't em dashes, its the tone and how it is structured.
I have work with Claude in my development and I notice that it tends to have this "AI tone" to it when I read it. Additionally, it has the AI structure. Sometimes I always believe that "Maybe that's their voice" but after investigating further, it's usually never the case.
I see people on dev.to use AI in a good way because of Grammar fixes and such. In this way, it doesn't remove the "tone" of the original author and it is still their work unless the reiterate 100 times to the point it's no longer their voice. It's just AI-generated text with extra steps, which is why we need to be careful of how we use AI to not rely.
I hope this makes sense. Do let me know if there are pieces that I am missing or parts that confused you! Thanks again Kartik for the question :D
Sometimes I don't realize content is good until I find myself sharing it with someone else.
i dont know what is going on my life is in stuck.
Solid writeup. The practical rule I keep is least privilege on any tool an agent can call, especially write paths.
I think good.
I actually relate to this quite a bit. I've done something similar with AI, even for comments. Hell, I built a personal tool around it that I would've published by now if I could 😅
Personally, I don't really see AI helping with writing as a problem as long as the thought behind it is still yours. I'm pretty introverted by nature and communicating my thoughts clearly hasn't always come naturally to me, so one thing AI has genuinely helped me with is seeing how I could have expressed something better.
Over time, I've noticed some of those patterns actually becoming part of how I communicate without AI too.
That's why I really like your "quiz me then organize coherently" approach. The AI isn't inventing what you think; it's pulling the thoughts out of you and helping structure them.
I think the interesting question is where that line sits between AI expressing your thoughts better and AI gradually becoming the source of the thoughts themselves. As long as I can still explain and defend what I put my name on without needing AI beside me, I'm personally pretty comfortable using it.
Also, training custom skills around your own writing style sounds interesting. Has doing that changed the way you write or communicate without AI over time?
This line hit hard: 'Can they explain, in detail and in real time, what they did and why?' 🎯
As a developer, I’ve felt that exact trap—it’s so easy to let AI write a perfect solution or polish a post, but the moment you can’t defend or explain your own work, the learning stops.
I really like your point about asking questions that expand rather than just recite. It shifts the comment section from an echo chamber into a real learning space. Thanks for writing this reality check for the community!
I agree with your take. AI-generated text often needs careful fact-checking, since models can confidently hallucinate details — wrong prices, made-up features, non-existent APIs, you name it. If you don't verify, you risk publishing misinformation without even realizing it.
That's why I think the better approach is feeding the model your own accurate content/context first, then letting it help with phrasing or structure, rather than asking it to generate facts from scratch. It shifts AI's role from "source of truth" to "editing assistant," which matches your point about still doing the thinking yourself.
I think the focus shouldn’t only be on whether AI was involved, but on the value, originality, and personal experience behind the content. AI can help with ideas, structure, and productivity, but the human perspective is what makes an article worth reading.
YES YES YES 100% Agree with your article. I dont hate use of AI, in fact i use it daily to debug something. but we should've been use AI as a tool, not treat it as a person to do things.
I want to quotes tony stark from Spiderman Homecoming movie where he wants to take back the suit from peter. He said something like this "If you're nothing without the suit, then you don't deserve the suit", and the suit here is AI.
AI is great, it helps you do things, but you are the brain. you need to understand what you build / make first!
I agree, I think it's really important to question and understand what AI has written. Many times I'll ask someone a follow up question to their solution, and they'll respond with "AI told me".
I think AI seeming so confident in its answers is causing people to believe what it says without questioning it. With pressure from businesses to use AI for everything, and now being accustomed to the faster speeds at which we get work done, how do we take a step back and research the problem ourselves before consulting AI?
In today's world it's all ai generated from the projects to caption and comment. I started my journey with freeCodeCamp. And i still love that platform because it really feels like you're learning something, making efforts as you have to write every single word by typing. But now I feel like if I try to continue to learn from there, i will fall behind. I feel like if I try to understand everything of my project which i want to do, others will make 10 projects by that time by vibe coding.
Great post. This really resonates with me.
I work on tactile data standardization for embodied AI — essentially building an open annotation format standard (like ROS, but for touch sensors). It's deeply technical work where every design decision has to be defensible.
I use AI daily: for grammar fixes, structuring docs. But when someone asks me why we defined 14 semantic dimensions instead of 18, or why a specific sensor adapter works a certain way — AI can't answer that. I have to.
For me, the litmus test is simple: if someone challenged me on every claim in my article at a conference Q&A, could I defend all of it? If the answer is yes, the AI was a tool. If not, it was a crutch.
The tricky part with standards work is that "good content" isn't just about clarity — it's about whether the spec actually works when someone implements it. You can't vibe-code a protocol. The community either adopts it or they don't, and that judgment is brutally honest.
I saw a comment that reads "Write to express, not to impress;" and this hits the exact core of this debate.
When AI handles the "impressing" - polishing grammar, structuring bullet points, and summarizing specs—it strips away the personal friction that makes human writing relatable. A developer sharing raw, messy learnings from a real debugging session will always offer more value than a flawless, surface-level summary generated in seconds.
Your call to ask expanding questions rather than just repeating key points is the exact mindset shift dev.to needs as AI tools become ubiquitous. Great reflection!
You can use AI to smooth out prose or optimize code snippets, but if you can't walk someone through your architectural choices off the cuff, did you actually learn anything?
Pair that with "Write to express, not to impress" and the standard for good content becomes obvious: good content communicates real-world experience and clear problem-solving, not just a clean surface. Using AI as a learning scaffold makes sense, but substituting it for actual understanding leaves you stranded when real technical discussions happen.
I agree and am both a victim and enemy of blindly using AI. But also I don't mind AI as long as the content comes from real experience and original thought. Typically, what I do is write a really bad error-ridden giant block of text or notes and then prompt AI to just make it look better lol. Anyway, nice read!
Content itself speaks weather it is good or bad...