You're responding to simonw, the guy who could be considered the single leading voice in practical applications of llms, with an anecdote about how one time the bot gave you a compiler error, and llm coding is therefore useless.

▲

jpc0 5 days ago | parent [-]

I would agree with you if it was just one time, this is multiple times.

Also look up appeal to authority, everyone can be better, I respect Simon don’t get me wrong, but I don’t read names before I comment and you would probably do well to do the same, let what people say stand on their own.

▲

elliotto 5 days ago | parent [-]

I read what you wrote and let it stand on its own. Your comment mentioned a single time the bot had failed - there was no mention of it occurring multiple times. Maybe you should flesh out your anecdotes properly.

If you are treating anonymous posts on forums with the same authority as experts on those topics then it makes sense why you are struggling to use new tooling.

	▲	jpc0 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I use AI for sure, but only on things that I can easily verify is correct Where did I say I was struggling, I stated a preference, I even stated lived experience with using a coding agent and a chat based LLM interface and have a preference for the chat based version. I don’t struggle to use modern tooling, I pointed out that the analogy is terrible and how my lived experience proves that, I do use LLMs in anger daily for coding tasks, I just don’t treat them like interns. Many time the points I used indicate that what I am doing is not in the training set, when you work on hard problems you run into edge cases a little more reliably than when you don’t. Stop defending a man you don’t know on the internet, his words defend him well enough and I can hope he just stops using that analogy because it is fundamentally flawed, which is the point of my comments. The rest of his comment makes perfect sense and is the way I use LLMs and have to work around their idiosyncrasies anyway.