I'm sorry, I read this comment like 3 times and I still don't understand what it's trying to say. Who are the companies you're talking about and are they too positive on LLMs or too negative?

Just that blind fanaticism leads to things like constant goal post moving when the product doesn’t live up to the hype. This damages people’s perception of the tool and causes them to be burnt out on it when it isn’t in fact magic.

Instead we should be accepting that people will or wont find uses for it depending on their competency (CRUD app churn VS somewhat novel creations) and accept that without telling them they’re nuts, luddites, etc.

Then again like I said the people doing that usually have something to gain such as a product related to the hype generating product.

Here’s an example article that hit the front page for HN this week https://fly.io/blog/youre-all-nuts/

I wrote that article, and I don't believe "any" skepticism of "AI" is nuts. As an existence proof: I think "vibe coding" produces results as bad as skeptics say it does. The article is pretty specific about what it says the nutty claims are.

Ahh I finally get it: you were claiming you only hang out with nuts (when it comes to AI)

--the link itself says "you", but that's also addressing your friends I presume?

Edit: the politicians too?

>To the consternation of many of my friends, I’m not a radical or a futurist.

(Apologies if you were tipsy at any point in the relevant parts)

I'm sorry, I really can't follow any of this. No two lines of this seem to go together. "The politicians"?

The many of your friends who are into radicalism or futurism

The link: fly.io/blog/YOUre-all-nuts/

(XD)

Sorry, not getting me any closer to understanding this. The post took something like a month to put together.

Hah. Perfect. Then you’ll also agree with my statement about differing levels of acceptance I assume?

Could you restate it? My whole point in this thread is that the article is knocking down an argument many supporters of "AI coding" aren't making. As I've just demonstrated, it's easy to find a skeptical argument that this "supporter" agrees with.

I mean I could but I think a better way to get to the heart of this discussion is to ask why you put quotations around supporter when describing the author.

Do you think he’s secretly against the tool itself or do you acknowledge that maybe the tool just doesn’t work for him and his use case and maybe he’s not nuts for finding fault with it?

I wasn't referring in any particular way to the author, just acknowledging that there are multiple kinds of supporter.