> Odd choice of a comment to post this reply to.

How? They claimed LLMs somehow enabled them to write more code in the span of 3.5 years (assuming they started with ChatGPT's introduction) than they would be able to write in the span of decades. No studies have shown this. But at least one study did show that LLM devs overestimate how productive these systems make them.

▲

thunky 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> How?

You're calling this person a liar because they don't have a study to back up their personal anecdote. Which is a strange position to take imo.

▲

anonnon 14 hours ago | parent [-]

It's strange that I don't accept unverified anecdotes on their face, especially when they contradict the best evidence available? Also

> calling this person a liar

"Liar" implies a deliberate attempt to deceive, but I specifically mentioned the possibility that these tools just make you feel much more productive than you actually are, as at least one study found. But I'm sure a lot of these anecdotes are, in fact, lies from liars (bots/shills). The fact that Anthropic has to resort to stuff like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47282777

should make everyone suspicious of the extravagant claims being made about Claude.

	▲	thunky 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're the only one in this thread that mentioned 2x and 10x productivity boosts and studies. Obviously everyone has their own experiences with LLMs. But I think it's an interesting position to take to tell random people that their reported experience is wrong. Or how you could be so certain that LLMs can't possibly be that useful.