[Forgeties79]

> It's so intriguing, I wonder if the people who are against it haven't even used it properly.

I feel like this is a common refrain that sets an impossible bar for detractors to clear. You can simply hand wave away any critique with “you’re just not using it right.”

If countless people are “using it wrong” then maybe there’s something wrong with the tool.

[hippo22]

> If countless people are “using it wrong” then maybe there’s something wrong with the tool.

Not really. Every tool in existence has people that use it incorrectly. The fact that countless people find value in the tool means it probably is valuable.

[Forgeties79]

Not saying the tool doesn’t have value. I’m saying the tool has a problem.

[dwallin]

When it comes to new emerging technologies everyone is searching the space of possibilities, exploring new ways to use said technologies, and seeing where it applies and creates value. In situations such as this, a positive sign is worth way more than a negative. The chances of many people not using it the right way are much much higher when no one really knows what the “right” way is.

It then shows hubris and a lack of imagination for someone in such a situation to think they can apply their negative results to extrapolate to the situation at large. Especially when so many are claiming to be seeing positive utility.

[airstrike]

Illogical.

I had Claude read a 2k LOC module on my codebase for a bug that was annoying me for a while. It found it in seconds, a one line fix. I had forgotten to account for translation in one single line.

That's objectively valuable. People who argue it has no value or that it only helps normies who can't code or that sooner or later it will backfire are burying their heads in the sand.

[Forgeties79]

>Illogical.

Dismissive. Also kind of rude.

> People who argue it has no value or that it only helps normies who can't code or that sooner or later it will backfire are burying their heads in the sand.

I don’t think this describes most people and it’s certainly not what I think.

[wtetzner]

This feels like a strawman. Most criticisms of AI for coding are about how overblown the claimed benefits are, not that there are no benefits.

[airstrike]

While that may very well be true, it's a valid reply to the GP who made this claim, not to my comment explaining to the parent why their argument was logically flawed.

[Forgeties79]

Just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean my argument is “logically flawed.” And as the other commenter said, I never said AI had no value. I have used various AI tools for probably 4 years now.

If you’re going to talk to and about people in such a condescending way then you at least ask clarifying questions before jumping to the starkest, least charitable interpretation of their point.

[wtetzner]

Except that the GP didn't claim that AI had no value?

[seanmcdirmid]

There are people who know how to code and people who don’t. AI is the same way, it isn’t a mystery.

[Forgeties79]

And yet every LLM company pushes it as a simple chat bot that everyone should use for everything right now with no explanation or training.

It can’t be a precision tool that requires expertise as well as a universally accessible, simple answer to all our problems. That doesn’t strike me as user error.

[potsandpans]

A bunch of people with no construction experience could collectively get together and start complaining that their ball pein hammers aren't working.

Doesn't mean the hammers are bad, no matter how many people join the community.

You need to learn how to use the tools.

[rileymichael]

A bunch of people with poor programming experience could get together and start claiming their new tool is the future.

Doesn’t mean the tool is actually useful, no matter how many people join the community.

[potsandpans]

Except my analogy is correct and yours is clearly biased. Continue to not use the tools and become irrelevant.

[Forgeties79]

I don’t think yours is correct or that theirs is biased.