lins1909

How can not believing something that hasn't been proven be unscientific? Do you know that words mean things?

Are you okay? This seems a bit unhinged.

Uhm, I'm very confused by the last part of your comment. You put it into an LLM to...understand the tone? Is that supposed to convince me of something?

I find it hard to believe you actually think those two things are similar or equivalent. I've heard many bad analogies in my life but this is so funny that it makes me think you're being sarcastic.

It's kind of strange to not engage with any of the points made in the article. Unlike you, I don't think the post makes them look childish at all. I think it raises a lot of valid points and makes me want to use Zig more.

You originally said being "anti-llm", but you now refer to being "incapable". Surely you can see that those are different things?

Why is that staggering? That feels like a pretty dramatic expression. Is it a foregone conclusion that one must use agents?

Demonizing people because they don't agree with you is detrimental to society and it is not sustainable.

Surely there's a difference between demonising people who disagree on the value of mushrooms in meals and demonising people who support a bigot?

Also, you lot conveniently pick and choose when to apply this, as I'm sure no one would make the same arguments for people who supported Hitler.

A pretty bad comparison. If I gave you the correct answer once, it's unlikely that I'll give you a wrong answer the next time. Also, aren't computers supposed to be more reliable than us? If I'm going to use a tool that behaves just like humans, why not just use my brain instead?

What a nonsensical take, good lord.

Lol. Surely this depends on what the new stuff is? Looks like all nuance goes out of the window when agents are involved.

And don't bank on getting economic benefits out of being able to use Claude Code too!

What if I just enjoy how I work at the moment and don't really care about this stuff? Why do I _have_ to give it a go? Why don't LLM evangelists accept this as an option?

Choosing not to use AI agents is maybe the only tool position I feel I've had to defend or justify in over a decade of doing this, and it's so bizarre to me. It almost reeks of insecurity from the Agent Evangelists and I wonder if all the "fear" and "uncertainty" they talk about is just projecting.

What a hilarious comment

Why do you say this subjective thing so confidently? Does believing what you just wrote make you feel better?

Have you considered that there are people who actually just enjoy programming by themselves?

HN is full of pseudointellectuals who like to mask their bigotry under the strange guise of being "rational". So no, reading HN does not make me happy.

What is it about people making up lies to defend LLMs? In what world is it exactly the same as search? They're literally different things, since you get information from multiple sources and can do your own filtering.

Well, you could resist, but you decided not to because you wanted to play devil's advocate for some strange reason.

Got it, thank you.

Thanks Sasha - this looks like a great resource.Just to be clear, would you recommend going through other newer resources than this instead?

Not sure if your comment is to discourage someone from going through this.

Your translation is dishonest and dumb. Having three kids doesn't mean they were from three different guys.

Affirmative action means you and everyone else there knows you had to pass a lower bar, of course that makes impostor syndrome worse.

No, it doesn't. But if that makes you feel better, I hope you continue telling yourself that.

That's _your_ takeaway from the article?

What the hell

Why do you have this level of vitriol? Surely if there is a "one true God", this instruction will not seem out of place coming from them? Like it would make sense that this God will say this?

And given that we don't know for sure whether or not there is a one true God, why exactly are you so angry about Ecclesiastes?