On @francistrdev advice, I'd like to summarize here my thoughts from previous threads about AI usage in writing posts and add a critical consideration about technical communication.
The Central Problem: Confusing Tools with Substitution
We continually shift the focus to this policy without addressing the real problem. We're confusing the use of a tool with the substitution of human thought.
In my specific case, the tool overcomes a language barrier: although I can express myself very well in Italian, translating technical nuances into fluent English without losing the desired tone is a different challenge. AI acts as a linter and language compiler for my original thoughts. The analogy is to putting a badge on an application that says "created with the help of the gcc compiler."
However, this isn't just for non-native speakers. Even for a native English-speaking developer, the fundamental principle remains the same. Writing production code or designing systems requires a completely different skill set than technical writing.
When we speak face-to-face, we rely on body language, tone of voice, and expressions to convey empathy, charisma, and to truly engage—or "seduce," in the best sense of the word—our audience. Written prose lacks all these channels. It's incredibly easy for a crude technical text to come across as cold, unappealing, pedantic, or unintentionally arrogant.
An LLM helps an engineer, a technician, or a professional formulate their ideas. It doesn't create the signal; it simply packages human experience, analogies, and logic into a form that captures the reader's attention and creates an authentic connection.
If the platform imposes a disclaimer or badge on anyone using an LLM for analyzing and formatting their posts, it signals that we're more interested in the surface appearance of the text than in the true demonstration of the intellectual labour that created it. We need to distinguish between automated bot-based systems (which compromise the integrity of the text) and professional tools (which amplify the human experience).
Hey Marco. Thanks for summarizing and posting it here! To your concerns,
In my specific case, the tool overcomes a language barrier: although I can express myself very well in Italian, translating technical nuances into fluent English without losing the desired tone is a different challenge. AI acts as a linter and language compiler for my original thoughts. The analogy is to putting a badge on an application that says "created with the help of the gcc compiler."
This is the most common way people have used AI tools, which I am okay with in my perspective. The problem becomes that articles are hard to detect if everyone is using AI. For clarity, the reason for adding a disclaimer is so that it can not only be used as a distinguish between bots and human, but it is also best practice to do so in any writing.
With that said, your disclaimer can be as detail as it can and it doesn't simply has to be "I used AI to assist on writing". Adding clarity to the disclaimer allows the reader to understand that you use the tool in a good way instead of using it in its entirety. Hope this makes sense.
If the platform imposes a disclaimer or badge on anyone using an LLM for analyzing and formatting their posts, it signals that we're more interested in the surface appearance of the text than in the true demonstration of the intellectual labour that created it. We need to distinguish between automated bot-based systems (which compromise the integrity of the text) and professional tools (which amplify the human experience).
AI has been trained on many articles in order to get the best results to the user, it doesn't formulate ideas on its own (sometimes you may notice an LLM links you various articles it summarizes). That is why citation is important. This is the same way as if a human looks at various articles and paraphrasing them without proper citation. This practice of proper citation in articles has been a thing for a LONG time. Even with fixing grammar, it is important to cite that.
In response to the post you linked:
I joined this community with the intention of sharing my experience with young developers and discussing with experienced developers like myself.
Same here! I joined this community so that I can connect with other developers. The problem is that bots and AI exist in this age and it is hard to determine who is real or not. It is very common to see articles having a monotone voice every time you read it. I recommend looking at this video where it perfectly captures on what the tone sounds like every time you read an article in this specific way:
Overall, there is nothing wrong adding a disclaimer. The common notion is adding a disclaimer will hurt their credibility.
I am sorry to say this but according to many people I asked that are developers and non developers "If it hurts your credibility, then understand why others does not when they add a disclaimer". For example, I added a Disclaimer to my Gemma 4 article and it turn out just fine. Sure, this varies based on community (because Reddit and Dev.to is WAY DIFFERENT), but understand transparency is important!
Hope this makes sense! Let me know if I miss anything or any additional questions.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
On @francistrdev advice, I'd like to summarize here my thoughts from previous threads about AI usage in writing posts and add a critical consideration about technical communication.
The Central Problem: Confusing Tools with Substitution
We continually shift the focus to this policy without addressing the real problem. We're confusing the use of a tool with the substitution of human thought.
In my specific case, the tool overcomes a language barrier: although I can express myself very well in Italian, translating technical nuances into fluent English without losing the desired tone is a different challenge. AI acts as a linter and language compiler for my original thoughts. The analogy is to putting a badge on an application that says "created with the help of the gcc compiler."
However, this isn't just for non-native speakers. Even for a native English-speaking developer, the fundamental principle remains the same. Writing production code or designing systems requires a completely different skill set than technical writing.
When we speak face-to-face, we rely on body language, tone of voice, and expressions to convey empathy, charisma, and to truly engage—or "seduce," in the best sense of the word—our audience. Written prose lacks all these channels. It's incredibly easy for a crude technical text to come across as cold, unappealing, pedantic, or unintentionally arrogant.
An LLM helps an engineer, a technician, or a professional formulate their ideas. It doesn't create the signal; it simply packages human experience, analogies, and logic into a form that captures the reader's attention and creates an authentic connection.
If the platform imposes a disclaimer or badge on anyone using an LLM for analyzing and formatting their posts, it signals that we're more interested in the surface appearance of the text than in the true demonstration of the intellectual labour that created it. We need to distinguish between automated bot-based systems (which compromise the integrity of the text) and professional tools (which amplify the human experience).
You can find my other comments on this topic here
Hey Marco. Thanks for summarizing and posting it here! To your concerns,
This is the most common way people have used AI tools, which I am okay with in my perspective. The problem becomes that articles are hard to detect if everyone is using AI. For clarity, the reason for adding a disclaimer is so that it can not only be used as a distinguish between bots and human, but it is also best practice to do so in any writing.
With that said, your disclaimer can be as detail as it can and it doesn't simply has to be "I used AI to assist on writing". Adding clarity to the disclaimer allows the reader to understand that you use the tool in a good way instead of using it in its entirety. Hope this makes sense.
AI has been trained on many articles in order to get the best results to the user, it doesn't formulate ideas on its own (sometimes you may notice an LLM links you various articles it summarizes). That is why citation is important. This is the same way as if a human looks at various articles and paraphrasing them without proper citation. This practice of proper citation in articles has been a thing for a LONG time. Even with fixing grammar, it is important to cite that.
In response to the post you linked:
Same here! I joined this community so that I can connect with other developers. The problem is that bots and AI exist in this age and it is hard to determine who is real or not. It is very common to see articles having a monotone voice every time you read it. I recommend looking at this video where it perfectly captures on what the tone sounds like every time you read an article in this specific way:
Overall, there is nothing wrong adding a disclaimer. The common notion is adding a disclaimer will hurt their credibility.
I am sorry to say this but according to many people I asked that are developers and non developers "If it hurts your credibility, then understand why others does not when they add a disclaimer". For example, I added a Disclaimer to my Gemma 4 article and it turn out just fine. Sure, this varies based on community (because Reddit and Dev.to is WAY DIFFERENT), but understand transparency is important!
Hope this makes sense! Let me know if I miss anything or any additional questions.