> But show me something that has become so critical in your day that if I took it away tomorrow, your work would actually fall apart. Show me something truly life changing.

- I no longer look at log files. If there's an MCP that gets access, I don't even download them

- I don't look up implementation details, just say "I want this bit to do X". In general, I don't concern myself with technical details anymore

- I don't try to debug

The way in which these examples are life changing, is that I now solve abstract problems, not technical ones. Of course I could still do my job if AI disappeared tomorrow, but a road sweeper could also do theirs if the sweeping trucks went away too.

▲

adamors 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> - I don't try to debug

Just today I wanted to add to my nvim setup some validation for Kubernetes YAML. Asked Claude why it wasn’t looking at schemas correctly. After 30 minutes of prompts and nudges, during which it went on multiple wild goose chases, I just gave up and did it myself.

Other times I did have more success but it’s not rare to encounter this infinite loop style drill-down, which ultimately wastes more time than if I did it myself from the beginning.

▲

ModernMech 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> show me something that has become so critical in your day that if I took it away tomorrow, your work would actually fall apart

> Of course I could still do my job if AI disappeared tomorrow

So then you agree with TFA, it’s not so critical that if taken away your work would not fall apart.

	▲	Supermancho 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>>> show me something that has become so critical in your day that if I took it away tomorrow, your work would actually fall apart >> Of course I could still do my job if AI disappeared tomorrow > So then you agree with TFA, it’s not so critical that if taken away your work would not fall apart. That's ungracious, at best. Your interpretation is something close to the death of the position, while theirs is the moderate interpretation of "causes chaos".
	▲	its_ethan 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It feels a little disingenuous to ignore the second half of his final sentence/conclusion. Feels like you're trying to do some kind of "gotcha". The main thrust of what he was saying is in the second half: "a road sweeper could also do theirs if the sweeping trucks went away too" - you could do your job tomorrow without an IDE auto-completing common syntax, but it's a useful tool for many people. OP is saying that AI, for him, is similarly a very useful tool that he considers to be close to "critical in [his] day". Why not actually address that instead of playing word games?