| > We all rely on abstractions over layers we don't deal with directly, that's just a fact. Did I ever deny that? Sure, some of those layers are worth it. That doesn't address my assertion that these "AI" tools are not. > Telling yourself that the layer above you isn't feasible isn't going to do you any favors but it does generate buzz on social media which seems like it's the goal here. You're halfway there. > You're not betting anything because the cost for you to change your mind and start working with AI tools is exactly 0. And here is where you contradict yourself. If I'm getting loud about this bet, and making customers because of this bet, then it will cost me a lot to start working with "AI" tools. My customers will have come to be because I don't, so if I start, I could easily lose all of them! > This rhetoric is just marketing. Yep! But that's what makes my best actually cost something. I'm doing this on purpose. > I'm sure you'll find the customers that are right for you, but you can at least admit that this kind of talk is putting the aesthetic preference of what you want work to look like above what's actually the most effective. No, I will not admit that because I believe very strongly that my software will be better, including engineering-wise, than my competitors who use these "AI" tools. |