3 ms·

You're only hurting yourself if you decide there's some wild conspiracy afoot here to pay shills to tell people that coding agents are useful... as opposed to p

by simonw 10mo ago

You're only hurting yourself if you decide there's some wild conspiracy afoot here to pay shills to tell people that coding agents are useful... as opposed to people finding them useful enough to want to tell other people about it.

blibble 10mo ago
[flagged]
- simonw 10mo ago
  If I worked for Microsoft as a software engineer and believed that LLMs were going to end software engineering I would not expect the value increase in my stock options to overcome my loss of income when Microsoft inevitably laid me off. (I do not think LLMs will obsolete software engineering as a career.)
  - blibble 10mo ago
    [flagged]
  - g947o 10mo ago
    I don't assume everyone can think of that next step. If I were that smart, I would not be writing a blog article just talking about using LLM to create new projects/tools outside production environment, because the same thing has been written 1000 times at least, and this article would not offer anything new, which would be a waste of time. Which unfortunately is what's happening here. (I came to HN comments of this article to look for new perspectives. I found exactly nothing.)
llmslave2 10mo ago
[flagged]
- jsnell 10mo ago
  Why is it the people posting positive comments who are "responding to incentives" by posting more, while it's the people posting negative comments who do so by stopping posting? Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless. I don't know if the original claim about sentiment is true, but if it is, I don't think yours or blibble's (conflicting) claims about the reason are very believable.
  - Capricorn2481 10mo ago
    > Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless Maybe it's equal for non-tech people. But I don't think a lot of tech people are desperate for AI to be useless, I think they're desperate for it to be useful. If you're someone who is smart enough to work with or without AI and you just find the tools not that helpful, I doubt you're all that worried about being replaced. But when we see companies increasingly bullish on something we know doesn't work that well, it's a bit worrying.
  - blibble 10mo ago
    because there's no sweet tech-oligarch job, early access to the latest model, OpenAI speaking engagement invite, or larger bonus to be awarded by being aiphobic? seems patently obvious
    - simonw 10mo ago
      There are a few people making decent enough money on the paid newsletter/speaking gig circuit for AI phobia these days. It's a tougher gig though, because teaching people how NOT to use AI won't provide those customers as much value as teaching them how to use it. (Because it works.)
      - blibble 10mo ago

by simonw 10mo ago

blibble 10mo ago

[flagged]

simonw 10mo ago
If I worked for Microsoft as a software engineer and believed that LLMs were going to end software engineering I would not expect the value increase in my stock options to overcome my loss of income when Microsoft inevitably laid me off. (I do not think LLMs will obsolete software engineering as a career.)
- blibble 10mo ago
  [flagged]
- g947o 10mo ago
  I don't assume everyone can think of that next step. If I were that smart, I would not be writing a blog article just talking about using LLM to create new projects/tools outside production environment, because the same thing has been written 1000 times at least, and this article would not offer anything new, which would be a waste of time. Which unfortunately is what's happening here. (I came to HN comments of this article to look for new perspectives. I found exactly nothing.)

llmslave2 10mo ago

[flagged]

jsnell 10mo ago
Why is it the people posting positive comments who are "responding to incentives" by posting more, while it's the people posting negative comments who do so by stopping posting? Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless. I don't know if the original claim about sentiment is true, but if it is, I don't think yours or blibble's (conflicting) claims about the reason are very believable.
- Capricorn2481 10mo ago
  > Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless Maybe it's equal for non-tech people. But I don't think a lot of tech people are desperate for AI to be useless, I think they're desperate for it to be useful. If you're someone who is smart enough to work with or without AI and you just find the tools not that helpful, I doubt you're all that worried about being replaced. But when we see companies increasingly bullish on something we know doesn't work that well, it's a bit worrying.
- blibble 10mo ago
  because there's no sweet tech-oligarch job, early access to the latest model, OpenAI speaking engagement invite, or larger bonus to be awarded by being aiphobic? seems patently obvious
  - simonw 10mo ago
    There are a few people making decent enough money on the paid newsletter/speaking gig circuit for AI phobia these days. It's a tougher gig though, because teaching people how NOT to use AI won't provide those customers as much value as teaching them how to use it. (Because it works.)
    - blibble 10mo ago