WeSearch
Almost Never Use AI to Write Anything Substantive

Almost Never Use AI to Write Anything Substantive

Erich Grunewald· ·15 min read · 0 reactions · 0 comments · 4 views
More from Hacker News (AI / LLM) ai Compare coverage Trending Talk Blindspots Daily Sources Live wire
TL;DR · WeSearch summary

I’ll explain these points in more detail below, but first, a few throat clearings.As you may know, I’m not anti-AI. I think it makes a lot of sense to use AI for many other parts of the research and writing processes, such as transcribing audio, analyzing data, searching for information, brainstorming, and giving feedback on drafts. I also think using AI for line and copy editing, or for rewriting a passage to make it clearer or tighter, is fine, as long as all the edits are deliberately accepted or rejected by a human.

Key facts
About this source

Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 5,618 of its stories.

Original article
Hacker News (AI / LLM) · Erich Grunewald
Read full at Hacker News (AI / LLM) →

Story provenance

Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →

Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.

Record

Original publisherHacker News (AI / LLM)
Canonical URLhttps://erichgrunewald.substack.com/p/why-you-should-almost-never-use-ai
Publication timeSat, 19 Sep 2026 16:35:24 +0000
Retrieval time2026-09-19T16:48:46.938Z
Last seen2026-09-19T16:48:46.938Z
Headline sourcePublisher (no WeSearch rewrite)
Excerpt sourcepublisher body
Excerpt methodFirst ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited.
SummaryWeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer)
Summary source textcontentText
Citation coverageSummary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL.
ClusterN7-6lpdjdn8p · 1 stories
Cluster logicGrouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison.
Ranking reasonStory pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking.
Publisher visitYes — open original
Substitutes article?No — link-out required for full text

Rights status (four layers)

Publisher-declared
No publisher-confirmed rights record for this source yet.
Machine-readable
No source-specific machine-readable restriction detected beyond the public feed.
WeSearch interpretation
WeSearch declared handling (basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed). This is WeSearch policy, not a legal grant on the publisher's behalf.
Unknown
Retrieval and training permissions are not asserted unless the publisher confirms them.

WeSearch handling by dimension

Indexing May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? Allowed
Snippet May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? Allowed
AI summary May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? Limited
Retrieval / RAG May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? Not asserted
Model training May the content be used to train AI models? Not asserted
Commercial reuse May the content be reused commercially? Not permitted

Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.

Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand

Why You Should Almost Never Use AI to Write Anything SubstantiveA plea.Erich GrunewaldAug 06, 2026801720ShareI think you should almost never use AI to write -- that is, to do the thing you’re doing when you type words on a page -- whether for a blog post, a research report, a memo, a thoughtful email, a novel, or any other text aimed at conveying an idea, an argument, an analysis, or other substantive1 thoughts. I think this is the case even when you give the AI very detailed bullet points, dictated thoughts, or other context, and even when you edit the AI-written text.2I think so because (1) the writing process is an essential part of the thinking process, (2) AI writing is vague and wrong in hard-to-notice ways, and (3) writing with AI (and not labeling it as such) is rude and…

Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Hacker News (AI / LLM).

Anonymous · no account needed
Share 𝕏 Facebook Reddit LinkedIn Threads WhatsApp Bluesky Mastodon Email

Discussion

0 comments