Most long-form public writing on the internet right now is produced with AI assistance, and almost nothing you have the chance to read, on Reddit, HackerNews, or anywhere similar, runs past a hundred words without it; that is the baseline I am writing into.
The articles on this site are written this way too, though I do not hand a topic to an agent and publish what comes back. I research the topic with the agent until I have a model I am willing to defend, decide on the shape of the article and the points worth making, and then have the agent draft on that base and iterate with me on it. Most of the sentences in the published version are written by the agent, but the work the sentences sit on is mine.
I think that is fine. What matters in a piece of writing is whether the content is interesting and whether it lands somewhere useful for the reader, and authorship is a secondary question.
The weird complaints
There is a recognizable kind of post where someone argues that AI-generated content is hollowing out their community, their craft, or the open web, except the post is itself written with AI, and the rhythm gives it away every time.
The frustration underneath is real: a skill that used to take years now sits behind an API key, and anyone who built an identity on top of that skill has something to work through, which I get. But riding the same flood you are complaining about does not make either argument stronger.
Why I write
My first blog post was in 2005, about page-flip animations in Flash, written in ActionScript 2, and I have kept some form of dev journal during my entire career. I am not bringing this up to lean on years; years on the job do not amount to much without curiosity behind them. I bring it up because of what follows: I can write technical content on my own, still I choose to let the agent write the articles for me.
The reason is the reason I started writing in the first place: to learn.
There is little fame in technical writing, and there is less money; the audience reads to do their job better, not to be entertained. What writing does, while you are doing it, is force you to close the gaps in your own understanding; the gap between knowing a formula and knowing what lies beneath that formula is a wide one, and writing is the cheapest tool I have for closing it. It builds intuition that stays, so months later I can still pull the shape of an argument out of memory because I had to put it on the page.
Sharing is a separate question, and I share rarely; when I do, it is because the notes from my own work might save someone else the same hours of research. It used to be an invitation to discussion as well, but the discourse online has gotten more hostile, so I have turned comments off across the site.
How I write now
The flow is roughly the same every time. I start with a topic where my understanding is thin, or where I know one layer but not the one beneath it, and I open an agent and start asking. I keep asking, push back on the answers, follow the citations the agent surfaces, and rephrase what I have heard back at it until what comes back matches what I have; that stage is most of the work, and most of the time, and it does not look like writing.
Once the topic is clear in my head, I have the agent draft the article: I tell it what I want covered, what to leave out, and what voice to keep, and it writes a pass; I read it, mark up what is wrong, and we iterate. The version that ships is one I am willing to put my name on, which means every paragraph cleared a read where I asked, do I believe this, and does it match what I learned?
The hours per article have gone up since I started doing it this way, but the set of topics I can write about has also gotten much wider. Writing was never the bottleneck; research was. The writing speed is irrelevant if you don't have anything to write about.
This is how it always worked
I think this is how an honest technical blog has always worked, and before blogs, books. Few good technical books were written from the position of complete authority, and the ones that were tend to be the dullest on the shelf; the good ones were written by people working out their understanding while writing it. The research is part of the writing process.
So, plainly: everything on this site is written by AI, prompted by me, on top of research I did with the same agent. The shape of every argument is mine, as are the choices about what is worth saying, what to cut, and what tone to hold; the sentences are not always mine, and I do not think that changes the bargain with the reader.