[sodapopcan]

Ya, there are already three pure ad hominem comments here with no examples. Zitron isn't even anti-AI per se. He clearly talks out his ass at times (like AI doesn't work for developers... which he's not saying so much anymore, I don't think) but his main talking points are around numbers and profitability.

[dan_gee]

As a C++ developer, AI does not work well for software development in my experience. Maybe LLM developer tools work better if you write React or HTML/CSS, but they have been inadequate for my use case since their arrival.

[sodapopcan]

Casey Muratori, who doesn't use AI, made this point on a podcast. Specifically he said that he doesn't blame web developers for wanting to use AI because it's such a mess of an ecosystem and impossible to keep everything you need to know to be successful in your head.

I'm a web developer to myself who has done zero game or systems programming so I can't speak to that side of it, but you reminded me of it!

[a1o]

I find it bad for generating code but alright for review, I put it as a tool to run along static analysis to catch if I missed something on a code change or merge request (being specifically about C++)

[skippyfish]

> Ya, there are already three pure ad hominem comments here with no examples.

You should probably understand Thomas' comment in part as a reaction to Zitron attacking Thomas in a pretty low-brow fashion, essentially for saying "hey folks, AI coding works and you should be using it":

https://www.wheresyoured.at/how-to-argue-with-an-ai-booster/

The bottom line is that Ed Zitron, like Gary Marcus, built their entire brand on being AI contrarians; they can't say anything positive about it without qualifying it with a more damning negative. There's nothing wrong about having voices like that, but it makes them unreliable narrators. I am apprehensive about AI and its externalities, but I don't want to be caught citing either of them for that reason.

[tptacek]

I swear to Christ before this comment I had completely forgotten that Zitron had ever written anything about me. Zitron isn't an engineer and doesn't code, so I'm not all that het up by his attempt to rebut me.

[ghjkghjkghj]

Oof, you have Thomas admitting he didn't even remember this in the comments.

[sodapopcan]

> You should probably understand Thomas' comment in part as a reaction to Zitron attacking Thomas

Sure, but an ad hominem is still an ad hominem regardless of one's personal feelings (it took me a good minute to figure out who "Thomas" is).

Otherwise, I agree, and I try not to cite extremists or bullies on either side. I don't even really care that much about defending Zitron, but I do put him on in the background because he does so many podcasts as I find it soothing to listen to someone rant and rave against the tech bro overlords, even if some of the shit he says annoys me. But he does show his work sometimes and wanted to point that out.

[tptacek]

I'd be interested in the schematics of where you think the "ad hominems" are in my comment.

[sodapopcan]

You were just attacking his character without backing it up? Do I not know what an ad hominem is? If that's the case, then that's embarrassing for me. Unless you're saying that your remark doesn't technically bash his character?

[tptacek]

Yeah, you're off on what an ad hominem is. I would dispute that I attacked his character at all, but that doesn't matter: an ad hominem isn't an "attack on character", it's an argument that is predicated on an unrelated character attack.

My argument here is just that Zitron says things that are wrong all the time.

You could fairly rebut me by saying I didn't substantiate that argument. That's true! That doesn't make the argument fallacious; it just means it isn't facially dispositive.

[sodapopcan]

Ah, well then colour my face red.

And I agree that he says things that are wrong much of the time, but not all the time. I also don't like him enough to care, but I do care enough to bring it up when I see multiple random attacks.