[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.