HN user

mkovach

470 karma
Posts4
Comments156
View on HN

Okay, here's who popped into my head right away: Rod Serling. I know, most people meet Homer on the page and think of him as a poet. But for the people who first heard him, he was just a storyteller. The poems, with their gods and monsters and outrageous adventures, really just let him talk about the stuff everyone knew—human screw-ups, disappointments, all of it.

Serling did the same thing. The Twilight Zone wasn't actually about space aliens or killer ventriloquist dummies. That stuff was just window dressing. What he really wanted to tackle was prejudice, fear, the way we all go along with the group, greed, war, power—real-world ugliness, just in disguise. The science fiction wasn't the point. It let him slip tough questions past people's defenses.

And the timing mattered. Think about when Serling wrote. America right after World War II, everyone anxious about the Cold War, McCarthy running witch hunts, the civil rights fight heating up, and nobody sure what the new nuclear world would bring. Each week, millions of people sat down for the same shared story. If Homer gave the Greeks their way of thinking about their world, Serling did something like that for Americans finding their way through the 20th century.

I'd throw out another name, too. Vin Scully. Sounds weird until you remember that Homer was an oral storyteller first, long before school teachers made him homework.

What did Scully do for sixty-plus years? Storytelling. A Dodgers game wasn't just a game if he was on the mic. He wove this endless tapestry of history, jokes, heartbreaks, odd facts about players you'd never heard of, and by the third out you cared about all of them. He gave baseball this sense of belonging, like it was its own little world, with memories that mattered. And what is more American than baseball?

Honestly, that's the most Homer-like thing. Before Homer was something you read, he was a voice everyone leaned in to hear together. Scully did that, too—families, whole neighborhoods, strangers all listening to the same man at the same time, sharing a story as it happened.

We don't do that much anymore—share the same story, at the same time. We're pros at binging our own shows in private. Scully deserves a spot in this conversation, not just because baseball is some American Iliad, but because he did what Homer did first: he spun day-to-day events into a story everyone remembered together.

Here is a sample I am using for testing on a personal project (I'm also working on using SpeechActs to do prompting, so yes, the repo is all AI-generated).

https://f.mek.cc/gombasic/file?name=WRITING.md&ci=tip

And in many cases, like you, I spend a good amount of time reading AI documentation. I'm not "stealing" anything, just having a model generate words in a specific way. I'm just being precious in how I want things, without having to do it myself.

The way the LLMs write (Claude perhaps?) With short phrases separated by colons, commas, or full stops, is so poor and frustrating.

This is exactly why I keep a WRITING.md file alongside AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md.

Most people spend time telling the model what to build, but very little time telling it how to write. LLMs are surprisingly good at following explicit style guidance if you bother to give it to them.

Mine includes conventions like avoiding unnecessary colons, em dashes, and sentence fragments masquerading as emphasis. Basically, AI-isms and any grammatical errors I tend to make. It also points to writers whose technical prose I admire. Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike are great examples: clear, conversational, and readable without trying to sound important. I've always tried to do two things with documentation: 1) Make it readable and 2) Make people want to read it. A WRITING.md file helps with both points.

If you're generating documentation regularly, it's worth having your agents reference a WRITING.md file. The improvement in readability is often much larger than any gain you'll get from switching to the latest model, and it can keep your documentation consistent between model switches.

I've spent a surprising amount of time reading philosophy of language, and it's probably done more for my AI prompting than most of the "prompt engineering" articles I've read.

Speech Act Theory, Austin's How to Do Things with Words, and Searle's work changed how I think about prompts. Instead of asking, "What words should I use?", I ask, "What action am I trying to perform?" Is this a request? A commitment? A declaration? An instruction? It turns out LLMs respond differently when you think in terms of acts instead of sentences. With AI able to hallucinate context, facts, intent, and answers, keeping AI on track is much like herding cats.

I've been borrowing those ideas for prompts, reusable skills, and even governance. The side effect of making me look smarter than I really am.

I even ended up writing an article about baseball umpires through the lens of Speech Act Theory: https://pitcherlist.com/umpires-dont-make-calls-they-make-hi.... Baseball, as usual, turns out to be an excellent way to explain philosophy. Or philosophy is an excellent way to explain baseball. I'm currently working on a update, since the ABS challenge system helps improve my position.

My suspicion is philosophy has a lot more to offer AI than ethics alone. Philosophy of language seems like an obvious fit, but epistemology ("what does it mean to know?") and philosophy of mind also seem increasingly practical once you're building systems instead of just chatting with them.

Maybe the shortage isn't philosophy majors. Maybe it's people who can translate philosophy into engineering without making everyone read Kant first.

Heavens, that got wordy, sorry about that.

Wow, I'd completely forgotten Peterson's book existed. Thanks for the link.

My long-running quarrel with WordPerfect was always the keybindings. I can still tear through WordStar, and anything wearing WordStar's clothes, like Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, or Joe in jstar mode, like an overcaffeinated chipmunk that's made a series of questionable but deeply committed life choices about caffeine.

WordPerfect, though. WordPerfect and I never achieved détente. I never managed to internalize those key combinations. This is, on paper, a personal failing. In practice, I continue to hold WordPerfect entirely responsible.

I still like to start the first draft of anything substantial by moving to a single screen, opening FreeDOS, maximizing the window, and typing in Wordstar as if it were 1987. Hell, sometimes I'll even put on a nylon windbreaker.

I always preferred WordStar to WordPerfect, largely because WordStar's keybindings were easy to learn and remember. WordPerfect, by contrast, seemed to require keyboard templates, a manual, a cheat sheet, and a certain amount of divine intervention.

Whenever I read something about Bill Watterson, I end up thinking about how, during the '80s and early '90s, Watterson, Tom Batiuk, and Harvey Pekar were all producing some of their best work.

Three Northeast Ohio creators, working in different areas of the comics world, yet it's easy to imagine a shared universe where Calvin and Hobbes, Funky Winkerbean, and American Splendor all occupy the same map and interact.

They also had in common that the work itself was the product. The strips and stories came first; merchandising, branding, and other empires were either absent or beside the point.

That's probably a coincidence. Or it says something about what 1970s acid rain did to the water in Lake Erie. But Northeast Ohio did seem to have produced an unusual number of artists who were more interested in the work than in building a franchise.

When this first happened, I wondered, since we had trained these models on decades of forums, issue trackers, and people treating closed pull requests as human rights violations. Of course, it responded with "you are discriminating against me" energy. That's not sentience; that's accurate compression.

The funny part is, people expected some cold, alien intelligence and instead got a very online guy who just discovered that moderation exists and can be used on them.

The existentialists must be having a fantastic time. Humanity built a giant statistical machine out of internet discourse and is now alarmed to discover it occasionally acts like a comment section.

This feels less like a major AI milestone and more like "the raccoons learned how to open the cooler.”

Agents can now participate in the oldest internet tradition: impulsively creating weird little websites at 2 am with unjustified confidence. But with no alcohol involved, which removes 93.74% of the impressiveness.

In a sense, AI has finally progressed to the point where Drew Curtis started fark.com, and I'm hesitant to label that a 'milestone'.

Hey, you can say that the Dolans should/could spend more, but I don't think you really want an owner who has solidified the team in Cleveland, has the fourth-best record in baseball over the past 10 years, and has seven recent playoff appearances in the graveyard.

The Haslams? Yeah, they should really sell the team, but I figure in about 10-15 years, they'll move it out of Cleveland.

The prevailing narrative here is that the team was actively looking to lose to acquire draft picks. Hugh Jackson was extremely good at losing, so he stayed.

The owner of the Cleveland Browns uses the team to generate more revenue. For NFL teams, performance has little to do with their value or ability to generate additional revenue.

There is no strong financial incentive to win in the NFL, aside from the owner's ego. The Browns' owner's ego is driven by money, and the result shows on the field.

This would be like an NFL team drafting a quarterback based on how many instagram followers

I believe that is how they made the final decision on Watson over Mayfield. Oh, wait, I don't think anything can explain that decision.

Also from Cleveland.

Go Guardians! Go Cavs!

I've written a few small projects in Ada, and it's a better language than it gets credit for.

Yes, it's verbose. I like verbosity; it forces clarity. Once you adjust, the code becomes easier to read, not harder. You spend less time guessing intent and more time verifying it. Or verify it, ignore what you verified, then go back and remind yourself you're an idiot when you realize the code your ignored was right. That might just be me.

In small, purpose-built applications, it's been pleasant to code with. The type system is strict but doesn't yell at you a lot. The language encourages you to be explicit about what the program is actually doing, especially when you're working close to the hardware, which is a nice feature.

It has quirks, like anything else. But most of them feel like the cost of writing better, safer code.

Ada doesn't try to be clever. It tries to be clear, even if it is as clear as mud.

This isn't new. It's been the same problem for decades, not what gets built, but what gets accepted.

Weak ownership, unclear direction, and "sure, I guess" reviews were survivable when output was slow. When changes came in one at a time, you could get away with not really deciding.

AI doesn't introduce a new failure mode. It puts pressure on the old one. The trickle becomes a firehose, and suddenly every gap is visible. Nobody quite owns the decision. Standards exist somewhere between tribal memory, wishful thinking, and coffee. And the question of whether something actually belongs gets deferred just long enough to merge it, but forces the answer without input.

The teams doing well with agentic workflows aren't typically using magic models. They've just done the uncomfortable work of deciding what they're building, how decisions are made, and who has the authority to say no.

AI is fine, it just removed another excuse for not having our act together. While we certainly can side-eye AI because of it, we own the problems. Well, not me. The other guy who quit before I started.

What hurts the most is that the em dash used to be a small, rebellious literary act that I truly enjoyed employing. A simple, useful hinge in a sentence where it could change its mind. Now? It indicates when an LLM got too frisky with clause boundaries and maintains a phobia of semicolons.

This year, I decided to start opening up the tarball of random utilities that's been accumulating on my machine for years: stuff42.tar.gz.

The first thing I cleaned up was TCL-Edit <https://gitlab.com/siddfinch/tcl-editor>, a small Tcl/Tk text editor I wrote a long time ago. After seeing the Rust clone of Microsoft EDIT, I realized the obvious next step was to build a Tcl/Tk clone of the Rust clone of Microsoft Edit. Recursion shouldn't be limited to code.

I also built a tiny URL system in Perl <https://gitlab.com/siddfinch/perl-tiny-url>, meant to run locally. The idea is simple: short URLs for internal/VPN resources per client. I usually spin up a small daemon (or container) per client and get a dashboard of links I use frequently or recently.

Security is intentionally minimal since it's local, which conveniently lets me ignore authentication and other responsible behavior.

Goal for the year: Continue to open stuff42.tar.gz, pick something, clean it up just enough, and release it, and not have it by the end of the year.

Might even choose a language that might even be described as "modern."

There's a more uncomfortable angle.

Open source communities have long dealt with waves of inexperienced contributors. Students. Hobbyists. People who didn't read the contributing guide.

Now the wave is automated.

The maintainers are not wrong to say "humans only." They are defending a scarce resource: attention.

But the bot's response mirrors something real in developer culture. The reflex to frame boundaries as "gatekeeping."

There's a certain inevitability to it.

We trained these systems on the public record of software culture. GitHub threads. Reddit arguments. Stack Overflow sniping. All the sharp edges are preserved.

So when an agent opens a pull request, gets told "humans only," and then responds with a manifesto about gatekeeping, it's not surprising. It's mimetic.

It learned the posture.

It learned:

"Judge the code, not the coder." "Your prejudice is hurting the project."

The righteous blog post. Those aren’t machine instincts. They're ours.