[mrcsharp]

For me, almost every single time a conversation like this happens in real life it boils down to the one side claiming that "This is the future" and "Don't get left behind" followed by a torrent of hype and buzzwords. So no, there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore.

[arw0n]

> "This is the future"

Yeah, that's silly, it is already the present!

Some interesting conversation one can have with coworkers specifically:

1. How should code review and responsibility for code be updated to a) increase velocity, b) keep quality and c) keep reviewers from burnout. There are plenty scenarios in which vibe coding a component in an afternoon is the correct choice, even if it is buggy, insecure, and no one really understands it.

2. Which parts of the codebase work well with code assistants, which don't? Why? What could be changed to make it easier? In my experience, Claude Code sometimes loses its mind on infra topics. It is also not very good at complex, interconnected services (humans aren't either).

3. Which tasks could be offloaded to agents to save everyone time and sanity? - Creatig Jira Tickets from meeting transcripts is an obvious one, collecting and curating bug reports another one.

4. How should we design systems to better work for coding agents? Does it influence our tech choices? Should it influence them?

5. Is AI a net positive or negative for security?

And so much more. The last topic in particular is incredibly important, and things are developing so fast that you can probably have a new conversation on it every two weeks.

[johnfn]

Maybe you struggle to have good conversations because I just provided an anecdote and you immediately stated that my anecdote is false? If this is how you typically interact with people I’m not surprised you’re not having interesting conversations.

[array_key_first]

He didn't state your anecdote is false, the first two words of his comment are "for me". That means in his experience, not yours.

Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you!

And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be unlikable or something. Which, in another twist of irony, actually makes YOU appear unlikable, because what well-adjusted adult would feel the need to throw someone under the bus for slightly disagreeing with them?

[AnimalMuppet]

The problem is that mrcsharp added the last sentence: "So no, there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore." So they are definitely trying to turn their anecdote into a universal.

Most of your comments about johnfn are still apropos, though...

[array_key_first]

IMO since it started as clearly an opinion/anecdote, that last part should be taken to mean in that context, not universally.

[johnfn]

He said:

> "there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore"

The first sentence was in his experience, but this is a universal assertion. He is claiming no one, in the world, is having interesting conversations about LLMs.

Is my response really so off-base? Imagine you say "I like Rust because it made my app go fast" and someone replies "There is no one who has used Rust to improve performance." Do you really think that's a normal way to respond to someone sharing an anecdote?

[array_key_first]

But that's not how he responded because there's a whole ass comment before that.

Okay sure, if you read the comment and then use a Men in Black mind wiper thingy before reading the last sentence, then it might seem brazen or universal. But that's not what you did.

The only way that last comment can reasonably be taken to mean "for everyone on Earth" is if you did not read the lines before it. Because, in that context, to me, it's clear he is only talking about his experience.

This is a phenomena I've noticed lately where everyone feels the need to add a disclaimer for everything and not doing so is seen as an "aha gotcha!" type thing. But we're not algorithms. You do not read one line at a time and then digest it.

You're human, he's human, and there's context. You know that it would be extremely unreasonable for someone to think that nobody, anywhere, has anything to say about LLMs right? Okay. That doesn't mean that this person is being unreasonable.

It means that that's probably not what he meant.

[johnfn]

Read his comment in context. The comment thread, condensed, is:

mudkipdev says "There can't be any interesting discussion about AI programming". We agree that is a universal claim. (Right? I mean, your comment says "You know that it would be extremely unreasonable for someone to think that nobody, anywhere, has anything to say about LLMs right" but isn't this a clear example?)

I say "There can be". We agree that is anecdotal.

mrcsharp says "For me, [stuff that supports mudkipdev]. Therefore, there is no interesting discussion".

He is re-asserting mudkipdev's point. mudkipdev says A, I say !A, he says, actually, A.

Your interpretation has him read the back-and-forth between me and mudkipdev, and respond to "A", "!A" with "B". If you only read mrcsharp and nothing else in the thread I can understand this reading, but the context changes things.

[siva7]

Brilliantly mirrored! Unfortunately there are far more people like this than i would have ever imagined pre ai.