> If you actually used LLMs instead of preaching against them from the sidelines with no real experience, you'd know such statements are wrong.

What about the people who do have a lot of LLM experience and agree with OP?

> That thing cannot do the stuff you say it can. And there is no way I will ever try it. But I know for sure I am right.

If someone claims to be able to fly by strapping bird wing shaped pieces of plywood with feathers glued on to their arms, do you need to personally jump off a tower with them to say they don't work, or can you look at the results of others attempting it and draw conclusions based on that? LLM proponents are making claims about their capabilities which can relatively easily be checked without using LLMs yourself. To pick an example where LLM proponents are correct, anyone who says LLMs can't generate syntactically valid code can be proven wrong fairly easily by producing an example of syntactically valid, LLM generated code.

Further, if you read the rest of the paragraph you responded to, it's clear that this claim is about the state of the industry as a whole. "Software has not improved in quality, got faster, become cheaper to produce (when you exclude the mountain of poor-quality demoware that no reputable organisation would touch with a barge pole), or become more capable." Whether this is true or not is something that can be evaluated without ever having prompted yourself, or even arguably without being a developer at all.