[jacques_chester]

It is ... problematic ... to lead with "anti-AI" and then bury terms like "judicious in our use of it" in the fine print.

IMO a team like yours can either:

* Use LLMs, in which case you aren't "anti-AI".

* Not use LLMs currently, but the non-use is not due to following a principle, in which case you aren't "anti-AI".

* Not use LLMs and promise never to do so.

I'm happy you are trying something new. But you hurt yourself by engaging in something very old: disingenuity.

(edits for presentation and grammar)

[dang]

I've taken that bit out of the title for the time being, since it was causing confusion.

[baepaul]

yeah this has been pointed out a few times, will revise the copytext later but will keep it up for the duration of the post.

hope our sentiment is clearer in the comments that i've made, i think i've made the mistake of phrasing here with the "anti", i'll revisit it.

edit: dang has removed it, apologies for the confusion i caused, that was my mistake.

[jacques_chester]

Thanks, I appreciate it.