[teiferer]

Sorry, good for you, but how is this relevant?

Imagine somebody writes a blog post "why I bike to work". They detail that they love it, the fresh air, nature experience biking through a forest, yes sometimes it's raining but that's just part of the experience, and they get fit along the way. You respond with "well I take the car, it's just easier". Well, good for you, but not engaging with what they wrote.

[joegibbs]

The difference is that everyone knows that it’s faster and to take the car but you get to exercise your muscles. But imagine it was 1920 when cars were still up for debate and the post was “why I ride my horse to work”. It’s still a common argument whether you’ll get better results coding manually or using AI.

[latexr]

> It’s still a common argument whether you’ll get better results coding manually or using AI.

Except the post has nothing to do with “better results” of the generated output, it concerns itself with the effect it has on the user’s learning. That’s the theme which is relevant to the discussion.

And we already know LLMs impact your learning. How could it not? If you don’t use your brain for a task, it gets worse at that task. We’ve know that, with studies, since before LLMs.

[azney]

It boggles my mind how AI discussion is so abrasive that people get their jimmies rustled over just about anything in here.

[roncesvalles]

Roncesvalles' law: Bad posts have bad comments.

[azney]

Ironically your comment looks AI written with that analogy.

[teiferer]

I'm sure people used analogies before the invention of LLMs. After all, the very concept of an analogy must have made it into the training data.

[aerhardt]

Did you read the post yourself? It doesn’t sound like it. It is composed of the title and three mystical-sounding quotes. How is one supposed to engage with this? Doing literary critique? A counter point to the statement “I don’t use LLMs” would probably count as valid engagement in any circumstance but especially in this one.

[teiferer]

I did. The three quotes clearly express a shared sentiment for enjoyment of building and learning while doing so. That's certainly something one can engage with by providing a counterpoint. But just saying "that's not what I do" isn't one.

[aerhardt]

The original poster “expresses a shared sentiment” by posting three quotes, but the poster you replied to, who offers a fairly detailed account of the value LLMs bring to their daily work life, and how they feel about it, does not. OK.

[teiferer]

Sure.

The original post is a blog post that somebody put into their blog. Its purpose isn't (necesaarily) to engage into a discussion or even interact with anybody. It's the root of a discussion tree, if you will, a place to make a bold statement or just express a random thought.

In contrast, the post I replied to is a response, which by definition (and purpose of this forum) is meant to contribute to a discussion. It's an inner node of a discussion tree and thereby needs to engage with the presented argument.

So, this is an apples-vs-oranges situation, not a double-standards situation.

[aerhardt]

The irony of starting to claim that someone doesn’t engage with an “argument” (put forth by three quotes, and nothing else), and then ending up with this absolute word salad and an irrelevant metaphysical quip on the categories.

[t_gamer_kle]

Welcome to Hacker News!