Skip to content
HN On Hacker News ↗

Don't be a meat proxy

▲ 1849 points 742 comments by ngruhn 3w ago HN discussion ↗

Pangram verdict · v3.3

We believe that this entire text is human-written.

0 %

AI likelihood · overall

Human
100% human-written 0% AI-generated
SEGMENTS · HUMAN 1 of 1
SEGMENTS · AI 0 of 1
WORD COUNT 251
PEAK AI % 0% · §1
Analyzed
Aug 3
backend: pangram/v3.3
Segments scanned
1 windows
avg 251 words each
Distribution
100 / 0%
human / AI fraction
Verdict
Human
Pangram v3.3

Article text · 251 words · 1 segments analyzed

Human AI-generated
§1 Human · 0%

Aug 03, 2026 Too often I ask a question in Slack or leave feedback under a merge/pull request or argue with friends in a WhatsApp group and get back: Claude said: [giant response verbatim] Please don't do this. I mean, I've done this. But I've been on the receiving end too many times now. This is not adding value. I can talk to Claude myself. It's going to be faster and I get to control the context. I don't need a meat proxy in between. Reading AI output is extra effort. It's verbose, frequently contains all too plausible nonsense, and is increasingly jargon dense. I recently got this sentence from Claude: NATS control-plane events: stream leader election / R3 quorum re-form during pod churn. Jesus. I had to lookup almost every word to make sense of this. By all means, prompt AI. But don't just relay the output. Read it, understand it, validate it, and then write a response in your own words (a decent certificate that you've done the prior steps). Making that effort is value you can add. Take code review in particular. Shipping some code can be done with close to zero effort now: Copy/paste the ticket description into Claude Code. Don't look at the code or read what Claude has written. If there's any feedback from reviewers, copy/paste that into Claude Code as well. If necessary, iterate. That works. But who has done the implementation? The reviewers did, using Claude Code, and you as a meat proxy.