[nyrulez]

I mean the headline "Net-Negative Cursor" is a pretty far reaching conclusion. The article does try to generalize on the implications from a code snippet for AI powered programming. The headline isn't "The example on Cursor's website is incorrect".

[alehlopeh]

Do you really look at the title of this piece and think “damn that’s a far reaching conclusion”? I look at it and think “here is an instance of Cursor not delivering on its marketing promises”

That said, this article is very obviously not rhetoric. It seems almost dumb to argue this point. Maybe we should ask an AI if it is or not. I mean, I don’t know the author nor do I have anything to gain from debating this, but you can’t just go calling everything “rhetoric” when it’s clearly not. Yes there’s plenty of negative rhetoric about LLMs out there. But that doesn’t make everything critical of LLMs negative rhetoric. I’m very much pro-AI btw.

[nyrulez]

"But then I look at what these tools actually manage to do, and am disillusioned: these tools can be worse than useless, making us net-negative productive." It starts from this premise right in the first paragraph. And goes on to illustrate an example that proves their point ("Let's pick one of the best possible examples of AI-generated code changes.").

anyways, it doesn't matter that much :) we could be both right.

[sjdrc]

Yeah you can't use the cherry picked example argument when it was chosen by the developers