> "It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things."

That's true, Jimbo. And besides the point, because:

1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference?

2. The enjoyment of using slopware wasn't part of the argument (see my answer to the question). That's not something I remotely care about. For the question my answer referred to, please see the cited text before the question mark. <3

3. People who define the very solution to the problem as "isn't super useful" do at least two things:

They misunderstood, or misunderstand, their capabilities in problem solving/solutions, and most likely (have) delude(d) themselves, and...

They look down on people who actually have done, do, and will do the legwork to solve these very problems ("Your work isn't super useful"). Back in the day we called 'em lamers and/or posers.

I hope that clears things up.

> 1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference?

For someone who has taken heavy enjoyment in likening people to analphabets you seem to have entirely misunderstood (or if you understood, heavily misconstrued) the initial point of the person you are responding to.

The entire point is that their identity WAS someone who is the man who can build those programs, and now AI was threatening to do the same thing.

Unless you a presupposing that anyone who can be happy with the output of LLMs for writing code simply is impossible of having the ability to write quality code themselves. Which would be silly.