For months, people on hackernews and reddit with a bad model of reality and lack of observation and understanding have been telling people that LLMs are useless and they are just toys, that they can't program etc. I have a whole graveyard of replies in my comments section from users on HN saying exactly this.

Nothing has changed this month, it's been good for a while and a small minority could see that it was already decided that it was paradigm shifting.

This is a notice to all of you that are just now changing your mind and crossing over: Your cognition of reality is flawed and you are not as good as you think you are at observing technological progress. The only thing that has changed is that you just now noticed how capable LLMs are. There are many that have been telling you before 2026 that it was here and you all tried to paint us as charlatans.

Reddit is still very far behind. Browsing /r/programming and other software dev releated subs like /r/cscareerquestions is like being at a dinosaur museum

▲

saltcured 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Based on your last sentences, I am pretty sure you will dismiss me. But, I have a null hypothesis to consider...

Like you implied, I think a personal threshold crossing gives this false impression that "everything changed" this month or last month or last year. Like you said, the main thing that changed in one particular month was the observer.

But, perhaps the AI epiphany is not waking up to recognize how good AI already was. Instead, it could be when an individual's standards degrade such that the same AI usage is seen as a benefit instead of a liability. Both interpretations yield the same basic pattern of adoption and commentary that we see right now.

The difference will be in the long-term outcome. Some years from now, will we see that this mass adoption yielded a renaissance of productivity and quality, or a cataclysm of slop-induced liability and loss?

	▲	keeda an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I know appeal to authority can be a fallacy, but there is something to be said for appeal to a preponderence of concurring authorities. Multiple notable personalities known for their technical chops have been endorsing AI assisted coding, so it's hard to argue that every one of them lowered their standards. It's been fun seeing the cognitive dissonance in anti-LLM tech circles as technical giants that they idolized, from Torvalds through Carmack all the way up to Knuth, say something positive about AI, let alone sing praises of it!
	▲	jason_oster 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I have to point out that having "high personal standards" is its own fatal flaw. The worst quality code I've seen comes from developers with little self awareness or humility. They call themselves artisans and take no responsibility for the minefield of bugs and security vulnerabilities left in their wake. The Internet is held together with bubblegum and baling wire [1] [2] because artisans reject self improvement. These same artisans complain about how bad AI generated code is. The AI is trained on your bad artisan code. It's like they are looking in the mirror for the first time and being disgusted by what they see. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/29/the-internet-is-held-toget... [2]: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/11/the-internet-is-held-tog...