in which AI coding advocates are the whiniest goddamn assholes
Post
Replies:
12
@davidgerard god that guy is so fucking pilled
@davidgerard That initial essay is great - and a great summary of not just how (functional) open source projects work but also how (functional) places of employment work. You're betting on the person and investing in them - the initial PR/interview is just to get an assessment of how you think they'll fit and whether they can be trained. LLMs completely short-circuit that ability to assess the person entirely
@Jer @davidgerard That at least *used* to be the case. AI psychosis has also totally wrecked hiring now.
@davidgerard "How can you say I've been chain smoking in your car? *sniff-sniff* It is literally impossible to tell!"
"I am going to keep smoking in your car because if I just leave the window open a bit you won't be able to ever know."
Why did you make me read this, @davidgerard !?
This position winds me up:
“I don't mean that it's important to consider the possibility that 100% of good contributions are LLM-assissted. I'm saying that we don't know the actual number and the blog post doesn't address it at all.”
This is a bullshit argument. When someone says the numbers aren’t good enough for them, can they articulate what numbers WOULD be good enough? What numbers would the project need to post in order to have their argument pass this person’s arbitrary muster? We can simulate numbers. We can imagine X contributions, Y% LLM, Z% good, etc. But this person wants the LLM-banning project to do all that work, publish the numbers to this person’s satisfaction, and take feedback.
I guess I’m saying if “the actual number” really makes the difference, the person can make a synthetic argument using dummy numbers to make the point. They can establish a methodology where all you have to do is put in the real numbers and a 👍 or 👎 pops out. They don’t. They just whine that the author didn’t do what they think they want.
@paco you might think these guys talk like someone just threatened their cocaine supply
@davidgerard
LLM Enthusiast: “I believe the top performers are overwhelmingly using LLMs.”
Author: “our experience with triaging PRs pre-LLM ban does not match your assumption at all.”
Enthusiast: “I don't understand how you'd be able to tell.”
Never let someone else’s competence get in the way of your confidence.
@davidgerard "If we assume that LLMs are fucking awesome, then banning them is dumb, QED"
@davidgerard I love how the thread is everyone else being reasonable, and _one guy_ being unable to admit there could be a reason to ban LLMs.
@danielleigh ah ah ah! *two* guys (the other one is a totally not Nazi)
@davidgerard what else is new?
