[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.