> That's why I'm the developer and author.

It's bold to call yourself an author when you merely edited something that somebody else wrote for you. It's like me going to work and all my PRs being done by 3 North Koreans in a trench coat. I am not the author then, and neither are you when using an LLM.

> sin of the tools I chose to use for my work.

Your editor is a tool, your terminal is a tool, agentic LLMs are somebody else doing your work instead of you (badly, very very badly).

▲

Cheer2171 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, buddy. You didn't actually respond to my point. You're so clearly irrationally triggered by AI you can't even have a rational conversation.

▲

ath3nd 2 days ago | parent [-]

I got 10 upvotes on my first answer, and 4 on the next one, how many did you have?

Maybe not everyone is so enthusiastic to reduce their skill level while simultaneously lining the pockets of our corporate overlords? Have you considered that you are in the wrong, and that's why you are irrationally triggered by people questioning your stance?

The science is clear: you start cognitively declining the more you use LLMs:

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/mit-study-finds-artifi...

The current research on experienced developers (be mindful this study is on experienced developers so if your mileage varies, take a second look at the word experienced) shows that their performance also declines by roughly 19% while using LLMs.

https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

So, you are deskilling yourself while at the same time producing less than before and wasting money and burning resources, for what?

I already can see the opportunity for a business for those of us who didn't get our brains rotted by the overuse of LLMs, to fix the messes created by "engineers" using LLMs.

▲

Cheer2171 2 days ago | parent [-]

You keep not responding to the actual point I am making. I made a specific point with an example about LLM generated commit messages. You keep tilling at imaginary windmills. I'm done. You clearly need therapy.

And citing up votes? Without controlling for how votes are also a function of time since posting and depth of reply thread?

	▲	ath3nd 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your point is that you didn't address any of the studies I shared, nor did you provide any counter studies, nor did you reveal your upvotes/down votes on your comments. Basically your argument is non existent, it's a type of 'trust me bro'. And LLM boosters, holding literally the most basic and mainstream position, are always the victims. The burden of proof is on you, yo. You are the one claiming something new is useful and we all should be paying attention to it and funding it. Studies say otherwise, so...now it's your turn to actually make an argument or effort, anything really. > You clearly need therapy Not from ChatGPT though! > I'm done. Can't say I am surprised! A brain conditioned to receiving sycopanthic enthusiastic agreement by an LLM even to their most unhinged takes, suddenly strugles to make a convincing argument for themselves when faced with real life pushback and immediately gives up? Delicious!