Stop what mate? My words are not the words of someone who ocassionally dabbles in the free ChatGPT layer - I've been paying premium tier AI tools for my entire company for a long time now. Recently we had to scale back their usage to just consulting mode, i.e. because the agent mode has gone from somewhat-useful to complete waste of time. We are now back to using them as replacement for the now entshittified search. But as you can see by my early adopting of these crap-tools, I am open-minded. I'd love to see what great new application you have built using them. But if you don't have anything to show, I'll also take some arguments, you know, like the stuff I provided in my first comment.
I'll take the L when llms can actually do my job to the level I expect. Llms can do some of my work but they are tiring they make mistakes and they absolutely get confused by a sufficiently complex and large codebase.
Quite frankly, not being able to discuss the pros and the cons of a technology with other engineers absolutely hinders innovation. A lot of discoveries come out of mistakes.
Why is the bar for it to do your job or completely replace you? It's a tool. If it makes you 5% better at your job, then great. There's a recent study showing it has 15-20% productivity benefits: not completely useless, not 10x. I hope we can have nuance in the conversation.
...and then there was also a recent MIT study showing it was making everyone less productive. The bar is there because this is how all the AI grifters have been selling this technology - no less than end of work itself. Why should we not hold them accountable for over-promising and under-delivering? Or is that reserved just for the serfs?
