Jokes aside, I think this gets at the core of it.

If you really loved horseback riding, or you really loved breeding and training horses, or you were really good at it, I'm sure that cars fucked up your day, and that it sucked to see cars replace horses.

I'm sure there were plenty of people who said that cars were horrible and that we should stick with horses. I'm equally sure there have been C programmers looking derisively at Python programmers, Python programmers looking derisively at Node programmers, etc etc.

But there's a pretty big gap between the feeling of unhappiness that something you liked is no longer as in-demand / profitable / common / whatever, and saying that cars aren't useful and we're all worse off for letting our horse-riding skills degrade.

This does not get to the core of it, LLMs are not equivalent to cars.

All of your analogies (in other posts) discount that: - LLMs are not deterministic - they do not produce high quality/expert level output. - They are not easy to control consistently.

Once again, and i mean this in the nicest way possible. You do not sound like you understand how things operate at an expert level of engineering. I do not know of any senior engineer who thinks LLMs can consistently produce quality output.

You are way too invested in your argument and refusing to see other perspectives

Lots more people die in car crashes than horse accidents. Good analogy!