zlacker

>>gregor+(OP)
Yup. I'm more skeptic than pro-AI these days, but nonetheless i'm still trying to use AI in my workflows.

I don't actually enjoy it, i generally find it difficult to use as i have more trouble explaining what i want than actually just doing it. However it seems clear that this is not going away and to some degree it's "the future". I suspect it's better to learn the new tools of my craft than to be caught unaware.

With that said i still think we're in the infancy of actual tooling around this stuff though. I'm always interested to see novel UXs on this front.

>>unshav+m5
Probably unrelated to the broader discussion, but I don't think the "skeptic vs pro-AI" distinction even makes that much sense.

For example, I usually come off as being relatively skeptic within the HN crowd, but I'm actually pushing for more usage at work. This kind of "opinion arbitrage" is common with new technologies.

>>qsort+w6
One recent post I read about improving the discourse (which I seem to have lost the link...) agrees, but in a different way: adding a "capable vs not" axis. that is, "I believe AI is good enough to replace humans, and I am pro" is different than "I believe AI is good enough to replace humans, and I am against" and while "I believe AI is not good enough to replace humans, and I am pro" is a weird position to take, "I believe AI is not good enough to replace humans, and I am against."

These things are also not binary, they're a full grid of space.

>>stevek+9D
I believe compilers are not good enough to replace humans, and I am pro