Programming versus Writing with LLMs<br>tags here, but anything not global or dynamic should be a `` tag on the proper page(s) instead. -->

Programming versus Writing with LLMs<br>Different Beasts<br>#software<br>#ai<br>#writing

2026-07-09<br>Both software developers and writers create text for a living, but their average sentiment about using LLMs for their jobs is different. Programmers have generally embraced LLMs at varying degrees at their day-jobs and for hobby projects, while a larger proportion of writers remains against LLM usage for their work. At least, that has been my general impression from what I’ve been reading and listening.<br>For this post, I will set aside important moral considerations about the effects of LLMs: energy consumption, water usage, pollution, scam potential, IP theft, and layoffs attributed to AI. Also, I will briefly ignore that many of the supposed benefits, such as higher productivity and better output quality, are not being realized in many fields where LLMs are applied. These issues cannot be easily dismissed, but on this occasion I will proceed to focus on a different aspect of LLM usage.<br>Assuming all other problems with generative AI were gone, from a professional ethics perspective, it would be acceptable for developers to use LLMs to generate code, even without disclosing it, but not for writers to generate text. If developers are asked about AI usage, however, they should be honest about it. The main reason for this difference is that code is not the interface that users see; words are. Users cannot see the code and do not care about its specifics, while most readers do care about the actual words on the page. Users only care about the effects of the code (how the software works), not its shape. As long as the system operates as expected by the user, most users will have no qualms about AI usage for code generation.<br>Programmer -> Code -> Interface: User Interface (UI) Interface: Text So, while developers write code that is mediated by the user interface, writers create text that is seen directly by the reader. Note that the code used to create the user interface IS NOT the user interface itself. In fact, people who design user interfaces (designers, in general) should feel more aligned with writers on AI usage sentiment. Work in the interface is directly perceived by the user.<br>Expectations While Reading<br>Readers assume that the words they read were written by a human unless told otherwise. In nonfiction, they will make the effort to read because they assume another human went through the effort of thinking and writing so as to create a sensible set of words that convey a well-reasoned idea. In fiction, readers expect that the author’s personality, experiences, ability, and feelings (his or her humanity) reflect on the choice of words and structure, generating written stories that thrill, evoke, and disseminate insights about the human condition.<br>When I chose how to write, I am making a set of decisions that inform the words that will be seen by the reader. When I chose how to code, the effect on the user is indirect. Code is (except for a few weird exceptions) not written for its aesthetic effect, but for its functionality, and there are multiple ways to achieve an almost identical functionality. From the user’s perspective, code is an invisible means to an end. Users, in general, do not expect every single line of code to be carefully chosen and crafted for their enjoyment. But more importantly, when I write, I’m also articulating my thoughts internally, deciding how I think the world works, what is true, and what should I say about it. Without writing the words it’s almost impossible to think the thoughts.<br>Following that reasoning, it’s more important to avoid (or disclose) AI usage in some pieces of text than others. For example, when reading is about enjoyment or deep understanding, writers should carefully consider whether to use LLMs is worth it. Novels, short stories, essays, and New Yorker articles are expected to be carefully written and reviewed by humans. I’ll call this kind of writing High-Quality Writing or HiQ writing , since readers will usually have a higher bar for it. On the other hand, quick video summaries, daily stock reports, chart summaries, and other kinds of text where the specific words are not as important as the information they are trying to transmit are examples of LoQ writing . In other words, when the choice of words matters, AI usage should be discouraged or at least carefully reviewed. True, LLMs can sometimes help with tasks like research, fact-checking, and edition, with varying degrees of success, but writers should be careful not to let LLMs do their writing for them if they are to honor the social contract. The key activity of writing is carefully choosing and structuring words to convey ideas, and if LLMs do that for the writer, there is little reason for the reader to read, since he could that by himself.<br>Contrast this with software...