zlacker

OK, great. All I'm saying is until we really have videos (or equivalent empirical analysis) of these use cases, it's hard to assess these claims.

Jobs comprise different tasks, some more amenable to LLMs than others. My view is that where scepticism exists amongst professional senior engineers, its probably well-founded and grounded in the kinds of tasks that they are engaged with.

I'd imagine everyone in the debate is using LLMs to some degree; and that it's mostly about what productivity factor we imagine exists.

>>mjburg+(OP)
Developers who are productive with these tools are not going to waste time on that.

They are busy doing their work and prefer their competitors (other developers) to not use these tools.

>>johnb2+0w
The article you’re replying to is just one of many examples of people who profess to be productive with these tools, but are spending significant time and energy attempting to convince skeptics to use them.

>>sarche+pC
For this article he took the time explain how it makes him more productive. What more do you expect? Why are you entitled to any more than that?

>>johnb2+hF
I’m not entitled to anything but what you said in the previous post is clearly not the least bit true.

>>sarche+Ep1
You are missing the point. The person I replied to is complaining about the lack of empirical analysis. There is no empirical analysis in the article. Subjective blog articles are not scientific studies.

>>johnb2+5Z1
Someone makes a blog post with the sole purpose of convincing AI skeptics to use AI and wants so badly to convince people to use AI that he even resorts to calling AI skeptics insane.

Someone else responds that video of the author actually using the tools would be more convincing.

Then you respond with essentially “no one wants to convince you and they’re too busy to try”.

Now if you misspoke and you’d like to change what you said originally to “many AI users do want to convince AI skeptics to use AI, but they only have enough time to write blog posts not publish any more convincing evidence”, then sure that could be the case.

But that ain’t what you said. And there’s no way to interpret what you said that way.