[oblio]

Honesty doesn't look like this:

> [...] get lost [...]

> [..] We don't want you to be a part of it either. [...]

He's being rude.

Honesty would be, something like:

> I (and probably many others) like programming a lot. Even if you're frustrated with it, I think a great deal of people will be sad if somehow programming disappeared completely. It might be best for you if you just found a job that you love more, instead.

Also the original comment makes a point that's SUPER valid and anyone working as a professional programmer for 10+ years can't really deny:

> poorly if at all maintained libraries, tools, frameworks

Most commercial code just sucks due to misaligned incentives. Open Source is better, but not always, as a lot of Open Source code is just commercial code opened up after the fact.

[theshackleford]

> Honesty doesn't look like this

Sure it does. Reads incredibly honestly to me.

[punkspider]

Seems both honest and rude, when it could've been honest and understanding.

Responding to the original comment with 'get lost' and 'we don't want you either' is not constructive in my opinion.

[bluefirebrand]

I'm not sure why anyone expects this conversation to be constructive at this point

People who are cheering for LLM coding because they hate actually coding themselves are cheering for programmers to lose their livelihoods

I am not going to be polite and constructive to people who don't care if my livelihood is destroyed by their new tools. Why should I? They are cheering for my ruin

[oblio]

Or, you know, you could just... say nothing? Downvote and move on.

It's not like OP is Sam Altman and one of the actual AI bros. This thing will happen or not happen regardless of what OP wants.

Amusingly, you've committed the same basic mistake as LLMs, which just don't know when to shut up :-p

[Der_Einzige]

Rudeness is a good rhetorical choice to make a point. Only stupid idiots would think differently.

[oblio]

Almost any form of speech/writing is a rhetorical choice.

Rudeness being considered a <<good>> rhetorical choice reflects poorly on its source's rhetorical prowess.