> Shouldn’t have to baby step through the basics when the author is clearly not interested in learning himself

I'd rather assume good faith, because when I first started using LLMs I was incredibly confused what was going on, and all the tutorials were grating on me because the people making the tutorials were clearly overhyping it.

It was precisely the measured and detailed HN comments that I read that convinced me to finally try out Claude, so I do my best to pay it forward :)

▲

timacles 2 days ago | parent [-]

I totally agree, and myself have gone through that cycle.

But the guy is being adversarial and antagonistic. Its a 2 way street, sometimes you have to call people out on their BS because I'm not seeing someone argue in good faith, but rather pretending some superior knowledge because hes working on a esoteric protocol like people here don't know how packet headers work

	▲	smj-edison 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't read it as superiority, perhaps bitterness would be the closest word to what I'm reading. > sometimes you have to call people out on their BS That's true, but I think that it's often much later than what some people would consider enough. Someone can be bitter, and still have good points. It's very dangerous to preemptively dismiss points, because it means that I won't listen to anyone who disagrees with me. I'm willing to put in the work to interpret someone's response in a productive light because there's often something to find. There's a framework that I work within when I'm in a discussion. There's three elements: arguments, values, and assumptions. An argument is the face value statements. But those statements come from the values and assumptions of the person. Values are what people consider most important. In most cases, our values are the same, which is good! The biggest difference is assumptions. For example, one assumption I have is that free markets are the best method we have to lift individuals out of poverty. This colors how I talk about AI. Another person might assume that free markets have failed, and we need to use a different approach. This colors how they would view AI. So we'll completely talk past each other when arguing AI, because it's more of a proxy war of our assumptions.