It's incredible that within two minutes after posting this comment is already grayed out whereas it makes a number of excellent points.

I've been playing with various AI tools and homebrew setups for a long time now and while I see the occasional advantage it isn't nearly as much of a revolution as I've been led to believe by a number of the ardent AI proponents here.

This is starting to get into 'true believer' territory: you get these two camps 'for and against' whereas the best way forward is to insist on data rather than anecdotes.

AI has served me well, no doubt about that. But it certainly isn't a passe-partout and the number of times it has caused gross waste of time because it insisted on chasing some rabbit simply because it was familiar with the rabbit adds up to a considerable loss in productivity.

The scientific principle is a very powerful tool in such situations and anybody insisting on it should be applauded. It separates fact from fiction and allows us to make impartial and non-emotional evaluations of both theories and technologies.

> (...) you get these two camps 'for and against' whereas the best way forward is to insist on data rather than anecdotes.

I think that's an issue with online discussions. It barely happens to me in the real world, but it's huge on HN.

I'm overall very positive about AI, but I also try to be measured and balanced and learn how to use it properly. Yet here on HN, I always get the feeling people responding to me have decided I am a "true believer" and respond to the true believer persona in their head.