maxemitchell

I did human notes -> had Claude condense and edit -> manually edit. A few of the sentences (like the stinky one below) were from Claude which I kept if it matched my own thoughts, though most were changed for style/prose.

I'm still experimenting with it. I find it can't match style at all, and even with the manual editing it still "smells like AI" as you picked up. But, it also saves time.

My prompt was essentially "here are my old blog posts, here's my notes on reading a bunch of AI generated commits, help me condense this into a coherent article about the insights I learned"

Author here :). Right now, I think the pragmatic thing to do is to include all prompts used in either the PR description and/or in the commit description. This wouldn't make my longshot idea of "regenerating a repo from the ground up" possible, but it still adds very helpful context to code reviewers and can help others on your team learn prompting techniques.

Agreed with the medium-term solution. I wish I put some more detail into that part of the post, I have more thoughts on it but didn't want to stray too far off topic.

Your rephrasing better encompasses my idea, and I should have emphasized in the post that I do not think this is a good idea (nor possible) right now, it was more of a hand-wavy "how could we rethink source control in a post-LLM world" passing thought I had while reading through all the commits.

Clearly it struck a chord with a lot of the folks here though, and it's awesome to read the discourse.