>> It's also fair to say > Did anyone say it isn't fair? No. I don't think I said you did, either. One might call this a turn of phrase. >> there's a persona

>> It's also fair to say > Did anyone say it isn't fair? No. I don't think I said you did, either. One might call this a turn of phrase. >> there's a personality type that becomes fully bought into the newest emerging technologies > Who? Why is this group relevant? What do you mean 'who'? Do you want names? It's relevant because it's the opposite, but also incorrect mirror image of the technology denier that you describe. >> Look, I'm not against LLMs making me super-human (or at least super-me) in terms of productivity. > Who is invoking super humans? Who said you were against it? ... I am? And I didn't say you thought I was against it? I feel like this might be a common issue for you (see paragraph 1.) I'm just saying that I'd like to be able to use LLMs to make myself more productive! Forgive me! >> It just isn't there yet, or maybe it won't be. > Strawman Of what?? I'm simply expressing my own opinion of something, detached from what you think. It's not there yet. That's it. >> Maybe whatever approach after current LLMs will be. > Darn! I was really excited to hear some specifics on this. I don't know what will be after LLMs, I don't recall expressing some belief that I did. > Thats quite charged language from the reasonable referee! Accusing, dismissing, funny...my. I could use the word 'describing' if you think the word 'accusing' is too painful for your ears. Let me know. > Source? Are you sure I didn't separate the paragraphs on purpose? Paragraph breaks are commonly used to separate ideas and topics. Is it possible I intended to do that? I could claim I did, but it seems you expect me to wait for your explanation for what I'm thinking. Could you rephrase this in a different way? The rambling questions are obscuring your point.