Analogies are usually weak. They are rhetorical candy. Just defend LLMs on their own merits - don't bother simply stating that they are like a hammer, or a car, or a compiler.

And try to resist the urge to predict your own downvotes. You are not a brave, pitiable underdog. You're just a person with an opinion, like all of us.

The word for what you're thinking of is "faith". Theory and belief are the constituents of all consciousness.

Young engineers sometimes fall into this trap - that there is absolute truth, and everything else. It would be nice if true, but it's wildly out of line with reality.

"Believing" something is not the same as having a dogmatic faith in something. We (ideally) change our beliefs with every new piece of input. That's good.

You don't like hammers...?

These kinds of posts make the HN rule, "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article," very difficult to follow.

its a fundamentally silly rule, because it is quite clear that people regularly comment without reading the article. Or, perhaps worse, read the article and didnt make the slightest effort to understand it.

You've read his writing outside this blog post? Or is this a first-impression take (in which case the degree of negativity would be a little unexplained)?

There is no negativity in my previous message, and I have read some of his writing on DDD a long time ago, so this is not a first impression. In fact, at the time I did not find anything wrong with his DDD writing, but I also didn't know much about him. It's just that in general, I have experienced at numerous instances consuming a piece of content, and later out of curiosity investigating the author's background, and finding out that they had no credibility to back up the authority they were claiming. Even in person, I have seen people go up on stage, spout complete nonsense, especially about AI, and having the crowd cheer.

This is a petty "gotcha". The statements are not in conflict.

> Maybe he should have had an AI check his post :D

Can we please stop this sort of smirking provocation?

Not even a gotcha since they are not “getting” anyone at anything. They completely misunderstood the author’s point and got heated up about something they made up in their own head. That’s about as far from a gotcha as you can get.

I can't believe HN has changed so much that we are now mocking people for not hardening their blogs against traffic spikes. The comment used to just be "hugged", but now, if the author has anything critical to say about AI, it's this same snarky, elitist quip every time. There are two of these up at time of writing, with multiple agreeing replies, all petty, all demeaning.

I know we're not supposed to complain about HN "changing", but, shit, it really hurts.

Turns out, people here are just as opinionated and snarky as anywhere else. It's grounding, really.

I admit I may have rose colored glasses on, but the snark, toxicity and the need to “gotcha” feels like it has gotten acutely worse over the last couple of years. My unfounded theory is that with the democratization of software development with LLMs, it has encouraged more to participate in tech dedicated forums. So, you trend towards forums like Reddit level comments now.

The degradation of comment quality has always been a complaint over years well before LLMs, but it feels much worse recently is all. There was a repost of an article where someone made a LAN gaming house and I was dismayed just how toxic the overall comments were of someone’s success. Compared to years prior where the comments were of a much different positive tone.

"i don't like llms" (someone's opinion)

someone else gives their opinion

"waaah"

Please, please consider keeping this style of posting restricted to other parts of the internet.

maybe you should limit your time on the internet.

you're clearly not equipped to handle interacting with other people who might have different opinions from you. what's with the white knighting? you're telling people to fit your world view.

you do realize the title of the article posted is literally "I don't like LLMs" right?

title of the article is literally "I don't like LLMs"

fyi

I mean, this is also Martin Fowler, a luminary in the field. His site should be able to handle the HN hug of death, particularly if he's bashing the latest-and-greatest tools. As is, he looks like an old man shouting about cars being bad while his horse drops dead at the side of the road.

I personally don't see the correlation between what he's been saying about AI and his blog site's reliability requirements. It's a blog, not some high availability service.

Also, was Henry Ford asking for regulation because his cars may destroy our civilization as we knew it?

This comment doesn't make sense as a response to anything the author said.

As an aside:

> they offer leverage in form of agents to put it in Naval Ravikant words

This is a confusing use of attribution. It's sort of like saying, "as Naval Ravikant famously said, AI can be very useful."

You are inventing an opponent who is not in this thread. Please keep this noisy rhetorical tactic outside of HN.

This fallacy gets pointed to constantly, but it's not actually part of most arguments. I.e. it's a strawman. Bad immigration policy can and does negatively affect opportunities and salaries. Immigration in general does not necessarily do so, and an argument to that effect would be an example of the Lump of Labor fallacy, but that is not the argument being made.