Azure88

Because code is instructions to execute a program. It's not meant to be consumed as an end product itself, only its output, which is independent of what it's made from, and if written functionally correct, irrelevant for using the software.

Articles are written to be directly consumed. That's why the writing matters there.

The next question might be, why do people prefer reading human writing to AI writing. There are a few reasons.

One is that because the person writing it is an actual person, they've imagined how the reader will take the content in and have made sure that it reads well. Different people will have different writing styles and you may prefer some over others, but generally they'll make it interesting, engaging, not ramble on, respect the readers attention, get to the point quickly. AI tends to put in a bunch of filler and not really make much of a point, or say something obvious as a conclusion.

A second reason is that people want to feel connected to another person when reading something written by them. They might trust the person and build a mental image of them as they read, and let that further inform whether they agree with their opinions and recognize biases, and refine that image of the person to better understand if they can trust the opinions and perspectives in their writing. You can't do that with the output of an llm.

In summary, LLMs are good for asking questions to when researching facts, producing functional output that is either right or wrong. They are also useful but not completely trustworthy when exploring ideas or asking opinions on things. And terrible when producing text meant for humans to read (including its own output a lot of the time in chats), and any kind of visual design beyond simple templates.

The problem with AI anything is it is still extremely unreliable. I had an argument with an AI opponent and it definitely won the argument from my perspective, but the system decided I won for some reason. It felt completely arbitrary and made me not trust the judgement of the app.

Once shareholders are involved it's no longer enough for the company to make enough profit to sustain itself, it now needs to make more profit each year.

There might be a period of growth in the beginning when investment leads to development of new features and refining the platform, and more users join. But eventually it hits a point of maximum market saturation. The product is as feature rich as it can be, the user numbers have reached their limit.

It's at that point that enshittification begins. More ads, the minimum amount of money spent to maintain the system, locking features behind premium subscriptions, prices go up. Just look at youtube, netflix etc. At this point youtube in particular has become unusable, and the content is nothing like the stuff you used to watch on there, it's all long video essays full of sponsors as that's what the company promotes and encourages, but not what people really want to see.

As a person not from america, the fact that this is the main view is worrying to me. Over here in the UK it's 100% normal to just use the rule of thumb that as long as you try not to get burnt, it's healthy to get some sun. No sunblock needed unless you know you'll be out in it for many hours without shade like if you go to the beach or a long walk.