Really tired of having this conversation over and over again.
-
Really tired of having this conversation over and over again.
A: "LLMs provide the illusion of productivity, by making you *feel* productive while wasting enough time that they're net negative."
B: "Come on. That's not a serious position any more. Maybe 3 years ago. Not today. Obviously they work."
A: "How do you know?"
B: "It's obvious."
A: "… because *you* use them, and they make *you* feel productive?"
B: "Are you calling me DELUSIONAL? Everybody who disagrees with you is just CRAZY?"
-
Really tired of having this conversation over and over again.
A: "LLMs provide the illusion of productivity, by making you *feel* productive while wasting enough time that they're net negative."
B: "Come on. That's not a serious position any more. Maybe 3 years ago. Not today. Obviously they work."
A: "How do you know?"
B: "It's obvious."
A: "… because *you* use them, and they make *you* feel productive?"
B: "Are you calling me DELUSIONAL? Everybody who disagrees with you is just CRAZY?"
We can agree to disagree. You can think that you've got enough subjective controls on your subjective assessment of your own productivity that you're making the best judgement available in your situation. (Maybe you should think a bit more about the ethics, but, okay, that's a separate conversation, and you might also have an answer for that.)
But please stop telling me that this hypothesis is "obviously stupid" without sharing _any_ evidence that is even the slightest bit incongruent with it.
-
Really tired of having this conversation over and over again.
A: "LLMs provide the illusion of productivity, by making you *feel* productive while wasting enough time that they're net negative."
B: "Come on. That's not a serious position any more. Maybe 3 years ago. Not today. Obviously they work."
A: "How do you know?"
B: "It's obvious."
A: "… because *you* use them, and they make *you* feel productive?"
B: "Are you calling me DELUSIONAL? Everybody who disagrees with you is just CRAZY?"
@glyph people who are using LLMs to save themselves time and effort in this case are being asked to document all of their LLM use and all the time spent dealing with an LLM and then somehow produce equivalent data from before they used an LLM in order to prove what to them seems obvious. Until they can do this, you'll continue your assertion that they're just "wrong". Even though you dont have that information either.
-
We can agree to disagree. You can think that you've got enough subjective controls on your subjective assessment of your own productivity that you're making the best judgement available in your situation. (Maybe you should think a bit more about the ethics, but, okay, that's a separate conversation, and you might also have an answer for that.)
But please stop telling me that this hypothesis is "obviously stupid" without sharing _any_ evidence that is even the slightest bit incongruent with it.
@glyph if they’re that convinced then we don’t have anything to discuss.
like i rather just block your ass at that point
-
We can agree to disagree. You can think that you've got enough subjective controls on your subjective assessment of your own productivity that you're making the best judgement available in your situation. (Maybe you should think a bit more about the ethics, but, okay, that's a separate conversation, and you might also have an answer for that.)
But please stop telling me that this hypothesis is "obviously stupid" without sharing _any_ evidence that is even the slightest bit incongruent with it.
@glyph something something "this is beyond science"
-
@glyph something something "this is beyond science"
@aud a new kind of science, one might say
-
@aud a new kind of science, one might say
-
We can agree to disagree. You can think that you've got enough subjective controls on your subjective assessment of your own productivity that you're making the best judgement available in your situation. (Maybe you should think a bit more about the ethics, but, okay, that's a separate conversation, and you might also have an answer for that.)
But please stop telling me that this hypothesis is "obviously stupid" without sharing _any_ evidence that is even the slightest bit incongruent with it.
@glyph Part of the issue that I've noticed is that if you meaure productivity by like, volume of code produced, but someone else has to deal with review, bug fixes, maintenence, etc. (or it's a "future you" problem) - then you will be "more productive" while the net-negative part is offloaded onto the person(s) that clean up after you, or will be a looming quagmire for future-you to deal with.
It's easy to externalize the other edge of that particualr sword...
-
@glyph people who are using LLMs to save themselves time and effort in this case are being asked to document all of their LLM use and all the time spent dealing with an LLM and then somehow produce equivalent data from before they used an LLM in order to prove what to them seems obvious. Until they can do this, you'll continue your assertion that they're just "wrong". Even though you dont have that information either.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
