Can't say I agree strongly, but I get OOP's frustration. It's just a tool, misuse of the tool can very much not be fun. When it's forced on you, most things te

Can't say I agree strongly, but I get OOP's frustration. It's just a tool, misuse of the tool can very much not be fun. When it's forced on you, most things tend to not be fun. But I am having lots of fun with LLMs, their application as well as assisting me with coding. What used to be a frustrating scour of the internet for solutions and examples is now a question away to an LLM. The not-so-fun things I used to dread, I'm letting the LLM tackle it. Most of the code I write could probably be written by an LLM, but I am choosing to write the code specifically because it is fun, and because maintaining LLM generated code is not so fun. I think this is a case of people taking extremes. Extremes are usually not a good thing. Don't over use or over depend on LLMs, but use them with moderation, letting them do things they shine at. Don't create solutions that are looking for problems (with any tool, not just LLMs). Don't fall for the deceptive traps of nostalgia, or be stuck in "back in my day". It goes both ways too, don't tell someone used to vim and nano to start using cursor.sh! I like driving sports cars in the desert, very fun. I hate driving anything in traffic. It's all about context. The internet can be very toxic at times, and very user-hostile at others. It can also be great. I like HN for example, as I'm sure many of you do. I don't like visiting gizmodo or some ad-trodden site, or toxic sub-reddits. LLMs are similar, there are and will be terrible LLM usages (truly, think of slaughterbots and LLMs being used by autonomous attack drones), but also fun and great usages.