You just steamrolled on, pretty much ignoring the comment you are replying to, made unkind assumptions, and put words in my mouth to boot. I don't mind some agg

You just steamrolled on, pretty much ignoring the comment you are replying to, made unkind assumptions, and put words in my mouth to boot. I don't mind some aggressive argumentation, but this misses the mark so completely that I have really no idea how to have a constructive conversation this way. > where the AI wrote some code some way and I had to ask why, it told me why I just explained that it cannot tell you why. It's simply not how they work. You might as well tell me that it cooked you dinner and did your laundry. > the code improves. We can agree on this. The iterative process works. The understanding of it is incorrect. If someone's understanding of a hammer superficially is "tool that drives pointy things into wood", they'll inevitably try to hammer a screw at some point - which might even work, badly. > It sounds like you either have access to bad models or you are just imagining what it’s like to use an LLM in this way Quoting this is really enough. You may imagine me sighing. > Also, pretending that the LLM is still just token predicting Strawman. Overall your comment is dancing around engaging with what is being said, so I will not waste my time here.