I want to talk about what I have notice on the platform and want to address what we all have been thinking about, but not really talked as much on dev.to, which is the use of AI.
Before you jump at me, yes, I have talked about this in the past on how people on dev.to use AI in their articles. It was great seeing everyone's opinions on this topic and I still believe it is important to talk about this now. Maybe more than ever... since we are getting closer to the moderation updates from @ben and @jess soon.
With that said, when I first made a post about my activity to be more involved in Moderation on dev.to, I heard a lot of people discussing how they use AI such as:
However, the one thing that stood out to me (which is by far the most common comment I have seen) is along the lines of:
As long as the content is good, it doesn't matter if the author used AI or not.
It got me thinking: How do you decide, when a content is good or not regardless of the use of AI? Something I took from Bruce Banner when he told Peter in Spider-Man: Brand New Day: " How would you decide, what parts of nature are good or bad?". (Good Movie btw)
Of course, this is an easy question if you remove the "AI" part of the question. Everyone has different preferences on whether a content is good to them such as if it was useful, insightful, easy to read, etc.
With AI being involved, it gets trickier because it can do ALL of those things. As a matter of fact, it's so easy that everyone is doing it. Everyone has the capacity to publishing their articles and they use AI in some way. Some more reasonable than others. Not only that, sometimes people use AI to write comments (Again, some more reasonable than others).
When looking at people's profiles on GitHub, I have seen a lot of projects that are AI-Assisted or fully Vibe Coded in a way where the goal is to impress the Recruiters and Developers. Although on paper it works, there is a flaw to this...which is can you explain what you did?
Of course, you could explain in text and all, but the point where people fail the most is if you try to explain the project you did in real time (AKA on call).
I have seen 99% of the time where I tell them to explain the project they did and the process of doing it and they seem to be stun locked. This really shouldn't be the case because...you built it.
Even if it was a complex project, you should be able to explain the main idea and the core features. However, that is not the case.
I was surprised because all of the experience people have done and the projects have built, they should AT LEAST answer basic questions about the project and their experience.
Sure, people get nervous ESPECIALLY in the interview process. I get nervous. However, the thing is that I learn overtime. It's just being human. Of course, people have different learning speeds, but as long as you make progress, it shows that you are willing to learn and that you are trying your best.
With that said, if you have 10+ years of experience, my expectations would be that the person should be able to explain the projects they did on a basic level, AI or not. If you are a person who relies on AI to the point you are Vibe Coding projects just to stand out to the market, it doesn't matter if the project is high quality or not...good luck explaining the project in detail in real time. You may get interviews, but can you pass them?
AI has been something I am against in writing specifically because I am afraid of relying on using AI. It already took a toll on me as a developer and it's hard to resist of not using too much AI and I regret this. I want to be the person who still learns while also using the tool in some way. In other words, do a good mix of AI and doing it yourself.
Additionally, I want to be the person who can answer questions based on what I wrote. If I were to write a complex topic that is fully AI-generated and someone asked me questions that I do not know. That would get me in trouble.
Sure, I could copy/paste their question to the AI and it outputs me the response for me to copy/paste to that person, but at the end of the day, I am not learning anything. I would be considered an ACTUAL Fraud because anyone can AI generate text fully. It defeats the whole purpose of having a specific community in the first place because we jump in and we see that everyone is an expert at something, instead of seeing someone actually learning something and sharing that to the platform.
Imagine this. Let's say you are a very popular writer and that everyone knows you in real life and online. You article is fully AI-Generated and no one knows about it. Your Doomsday will be someone asking you a question in real life and you have to provide an answer in real time.
I believe this platform has a lot of potential and influence to make a change. This community is small and big enough where our voices are heard. I believe AI is not going away anytime soon, but I feel like we should change on how we use AI. Instead of relying on AI to write our articles, we should use it the right way where we are able to learn something new while also utilizing the tools where it doesn't disturb our learning.
Here are some things I would do moving forward on dev.to and I would suggest everyone to do the same.
I have seen a lot of comments where they agree this or that because it allows this. Although it is a great starting point, it doesn't really expand much on the topic at hand. Instead, challenge the author in some way where you are asking the author a question that you cannot find in their article AND that you want to know as well. Unique questions allows you AND the author to learn. That way, you learn something new and it allows the author to get a chance of explaining the topic further that he may or may not know about.
Of course, people will judge you in some way. Instead of being defensive, think about if any aspect of their comment can help you grow. If not, then that's okay. People have different opinions on things and it tells them more about their stance, which is good! I would love to hear other people's opinions because it helps us understand more on the topic at hand instead of simply reciting what the author said (If anything, JUST reciting and nothing else doesn't really give value and it is really repetitive based on my experience).
For example, let's say that I talk about Python where one of my points is: "Python is a good language because it is an beginner friendly language for new developers". Imagine this comment from someone: "I agree that you mention that Python is an easy language to learn. This allows new developers to get into programming and has a less of a learning curve. It brings new developers into the spotlight, especially in the age of AI. Thanks man!".
To be fair, the best thing you will learn is that Python is great in the age of AI. That's it. Even that, most people will most likely know that.
Instead, comment should be like: "I do agree that Python is an easy language to learn for beginner friendly developers. Though I am wondering if there are other alternatives to Python that is also beginner friendly? How do you determine if a programming language is good for beginners other than syntax?".
This is a good comment because the commenter knows that Python is a good language to learn as a beginner, but also wants to know other alternatives and if there are differences in other languages other than syntax that the author does not state. Additionally, it challenges the author to think and provide a thoughtful response (maybe the author will learn something new or forgot to point something out). Overall, add more thought to the comment than doing what everyone else is doing. Yes, it is good to have a comment that praises, but I would suggest adding more comment if the article is going into detail about a specific topic.
Obviously, if they start spamming or being mean that provides no value, then that is a different story (I would assume we are all reasonable adults here and we can think critically before we speak).
On dev.to, the goal is to share knowledge/work to others people on the platform. This platform is built for developers to connect with other developers around the world. Now, stay with me, let's break this down.
If you are working on a project, ensure that you are coding by yourself without any AI. If you reach to the point where you can't figure out the solution for a good length of time, use AI. HOWEVER, clarify the AI to not give you the full answer. Only give you the answer that will allow you to think of a solution.
This will allows you to build projects that are your own, still learning coding in some way, and using AI to speed up development the right way. Additionally, with that ownership, you will still be able to explain what you built while also explaining how you use AI in the process that sounds better than what most people use AI for.
If you are writing articles on dev.to, practice reading out loud first. You will be surprised by the amount of grammatical errors you will catch by simply reading it out loud. If English is not your first language BUT you are able to write in English, try your best to write it out completely as if you are publishing this officially. Then use AI to fix grammatical errors, THOUGH keep it simple as possible. This goes the same for comments.
By writing out as much as possible via typing yourself, it allows you to solidify your understanding and become more confident in your knowledge as a developer regardless of the topic at hand.
The way @codingwithjiro uses AI is probably the best I have seen (and I should follow) based on @konark_13 articles on Vibe Coding: Personally, I don't want to use AI-generated code entirely especially if I don't understand what the code is all about. I don't like adding a line of code that I can't explain myself (I feel like I'm just lying to myself and I hate liers). But I always take advantage of the super advanced search feature of AI whenever I have questions and I kinda liked that. But I still have to double check it myself for best practices and officials docs just to be sure. My process is slow but I 100% assure you, it is genuine learning.
For my workflow, I always have a "discussion" first with the AI so that context building is not forced such as creating TASKS.md
or SPEC.md
. The point is to be conversational and that naturally builds up what I want to do with my project. Sometimes the AI gives good points, some bad ones, it's like taking tradeoffs one after another in a meeting.
Once I have the features listed, I move forward to building them one by one, and the pattern revolves again. I get to learn and upskill slowly but consistently. It worked for me and at the same time it boosted my communication skills, so two birds with one stone.
The theme you may notice so far is that you learn by doing, instead of relying. By doing so, this will allow you to learn and make progress of your Developer Skills, English Skills, and STILL be using the latest AI stuff in some capacity in a healthy way.
Additionally, this will allow learning to happen on dev.to where not only the user's will learn something new by asking questions to expand on the topic instead of reciting what the author wrote, but also challenges the author's knowledge, professionally and the right way.
What makes the content good is not a matter of if their article is written well or that it has a lot of engagements, it's a matter of if both sides are learning regardless of the topic at hand and where it challenges the author and the reader in some way where it helps both sides grow to the furthest extent they never knew.
Is this hard to do? Yes. It's meant to be hard. Though, it shows you that you are learning. If you struggle on a certain topic, it's a very good sign that you are about to learn something. It is a matter of if you have the will to do so and allow yourself to be vulnerable to make mistakes in the process.
Remember, we are not Professional Writers. We are Developers. Of course, you can be both. However, it's only a matter of if you are learning something new from an author and a commenter perspective.
The question isn't "Is this AI-generated?". The question is: "Can they explain, in detail and in real time, what they did and why they did in a unique way that stands out in a world where AI has dominated?"