Greg Troszak - Posts

A framework for processing my dissatisfaction using AI

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Like many people, I'm feeling some trepidation about AI, both at the macro and micro scales. I'm not even going to address the macro scale here - that's its own circus. But at the microscale, I use it pretty much every day. Most times it helps me get things done faster, which is a good thing. But I also usually feel very unsatisfied, even if I accomplished what I set out to achieve. I haven't quite been able to pinpoint why I feel that way.

Bob Nystrom recently wrote a post</a> that's helped me make some sense out of that. He argues that in order for AI to be useful, it has to provide some value. But what does it mean for something to be valuable?

He claims that things are valuable because they either provide utility or meaning.

A thing has utility if it helps us accomplish something.

A thing has meaning if you have some emotional connection to it.

That emotional connection can come from any number of sources - maybe the thing helps you do something deeply important, or someone you care about gave it to you, or made it for you. If you distill those examples, meaning is derived from a human being spending time on something. And time is our most precious resource.

As far as I can tell, AI is heavily skewed towards utility. Yes, we need utilitarian things, but the things that I value the most are all imbued with meaning. I'm not going to say that AI will never be able to create something meaningful. I just think human beings will always be better at it - I feel no emotional connection to AI.

When I think back on times when I've felt the most satisfied using AI, it's been to accomplish very utilitarian tasks. I'm a software engineer, so on the surface you'd think most of my tasks skew utilitarian. And they probably do. But I also enjoy practicing my craft.1</a> And part of practicing a craft is putting yourself into it.

AI makes it so easy to circumvent that. It makes it easy to trade-off meaning for utility. While the end-user of something I create may not care, I do. Maybe more than I realized.

Perhaps the craft is shifting - I should derive more satisfaction from writing a good set of prompts, wielding the tool effectively? But for now, I still find the process of thinking through abstractions, writing the code, honing it, much more satisfying.

I don't think AI is going away. I'm going to keep using it. But it would be nice to have a better, more thoughtful, relationship with it. At least now I have a framework to help guide me through that.

^{1
I realize some people scoff
at the idea of software engineering being a craft.
I think anything someone deliberately practices
and pursues thoughtfully is a craft,
even if the output skews utilitarian.
</div>}

Everything you make is awful

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

...or at least that's what you'll think most of the time. And that's okay.
If you finish it, that's a success.
If someone else sees it, that's amazing.
If someone else depends on it, that's astounding.
The upside of making something great is simply so much higher than the downside of making something bad.
So get comfortable making things you think are awful.

Beliefs, actions, and emotions

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Beliefs are theories. Actions are experiments. Emotions are feedback.
Not my words, but seems like a good heuristic to remember. As far as I'm concerned, the more quickly you can change your mind, the better.

Weeknote 2025.36

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Sun, 07 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000

A pizza night</h2>
I make a bunch of pizza dough. I bring my Ooni to a friend's house. Everyone hangs out and eats pizza. It's pretty great. And this time I had help making the dough and forming it, so it was way easier.
A cold</h2>
School started the week prior, and my daughter got a little cold. It didn't seem to phase her. She bounced back in like a day. I'm assuming I got it from her. It knocked me out for 1.5 days, and I'm still coughing up a lung. I'd consider myself a very healthy person, and I rarely get sick. But when I do, it really throws me off.
Functional Core, Imperative Shell</h2>
I decided to revisit a couple of my favorite talks by Gary Bernhardt.

Functional Core, Imperative Shell</a></li>
Boundaries</a></li> </ul>
I feel like I pickup something new, or am reminded of a good habit I've strayed away from, every time I rewatch them. On this instance, I came to the conclusion that I'm not pushing the idea of values as boundaries far enough.
Scott Wlaschin's talk on moving IO to the edges</a> captures what I'm referring to very well. It also makes a pretty convincing case that interfaces often aren't worth it. If you push IO (i.e. side-effects) to the edges of your application, and use values as the boundary between your core and shell, it's often easier to just compose a new shell rather than define an interface so you can easily swap them at start up.
I concluded this rabbit hole by watching Rich Hickey's talk Simple Made Easy</a>. While tangentially related to FC/IS, it makes the case that "simple" and "easy" are very different things.
Simple means "not intertwined".
Easy means "at hand".
In order to create simple software, you should strive to use simple constructs (think functions and immutable data vs. classes and methods) and keep things conceptually simple by thinking of the specific problems you're trying to solve. This will often result in more things (functions, variables, data types), which may not be "easier" to manage, but makes your solutions more maintainable.
I'll likely want to revisit this one.

A post

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

This is a post.
It's not about anything in particular - maybe that's the point. No one is inspired all of the time, or a constant source of profound thoughts that must be shared. That's the performative aspect of the web I don't particularly like. The internet makes it very easy - and tempting - to infinitely polish your content.
There's a time and place for that, but it's not here.
I've been thinking a lot about why I want this website. Digital ownership? Self-reflection? Curation? I don't think I have an answer yet - maybe I never will. I'm becoming okay with that. What I do know is that I want it. So I'm going to start, and see where it takes me.
I'm committing to writing at least one post per week for the rest of the year, no matter how shitty it is. It'll show that I'm human.
And one thing I can certainly get behind is doing my part to re-humanize the internet.
Nov 21, 2025</time>
I've failed miserably at this, however I don't feel any differently. Creating posts was too onerous, and I had little reason to engage with my site. I've made some tweaks to address both of these issues. Now I can write everything in Markdown. And I'm restructuring the site to make it more useful to me, so I have a reason to engage with it more.

Semantic line breaks

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The idea is to add a line break after each substantial thought when writing in a markup language that joins consecutive lines with a space. This makes it easier to author, edit, and read in source, without changing the rendered output.
The paragraph above looks like this in source:
The idea is to add a line break after each substantial thought when writing in a markup language that joins consecutive lines with a space. This makes it easier to author, edit, and read in source, without changing the rendered output.</code></pre> Dec 17, 2025</time> I've been writing this way for several months now. I do find text easier to edit. I also think it encourages succinct writing. If a sentence is difficult to break up, it probably has a bunch of unnecessary qualifiers, or isn't cohesive. It's probably not the best for more literary prose, but for technical writing, I think it encourages some good habits. I'm gonna stick with it.
Sources</h2>

Semantic Line Breaks</a></li>
Semantic Linefeeds</a></li> </ul>

Human curation

hello@gregtroszak.me (Greg Troszak) — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Curation performed by a human is tremendously valuable, especially post 2000. This isn't a new idea, but an often overlooked one. Curation takes time, energy, and consistency, which is probably why it's been automated in so many aspects of our lives. But that just makes skilled human curation so much more valuable, and all the AI hype will only amplify this.

Greg Troszak - Posts

A framework for processing my dissatisfaction using AI

Everything you make is awful

Beliefs, actions, and emotions

Weeknote 2025.36

A pizza night</h2> I make a bunch of pizza dough. I bring my Ooni to a friend's house. Everyone hangs out and eats pizza. It's pretty great. And this time I had help making the dough and forming it, so it was way easier.</p>

Functional Core, Imperative Shell</h2> I decided to revisit a couple of my favorite talks by Gary Bernhardt.</p>

A post

Semantic line breaks

Sources</h2> Semantic Line Breaks</a></li> Semantic Linefeeds</a></li> </ul>

Human curation

A pizza night</h2>
I make a bunch of pizza dough. I bring my Ooni to a friend's house. Everyone hangs out and eats pizza. It's pretty great. And this time I had help making the dough and forming it, so it was way easier.</p>

Sources</h2>

Semantic Line Breaks</a></li>
Semantic Linefeeds</a></li> </ul>