No, I think hammers are fine. I think I could find a lot wrong with them if I tried, though. I could miss the nail and mash my fingers. I could misplace them and not have one ready when I need to build something. The hammer might be too heavy and might bend a small nail, or might be too light and not be able to bang in a large nail. I was making a point that AI agents are just a tool, and "liking" them is kind of irrelevant. I'll take my downvotes like a trooper, go ahead.

▲

happytoexplain 2 days ago | parent [-]

Analogies are usually weak. They are rhetorical candy. Just defend LLMs on their own merits - don't bother simply stating that they are like a hammer, or a car, or a compiler.

And try to resist the urge to predict your own downvotes. You are not a brave, pitiable underdog. You're just a person with an opinion, like all of us.

▲

card_zero a day ago | parent [-]

I wish to defend the hammers analogy. I don't know, our whole world is analogies, isn't it? Plus it's funny, that's worth something right?

▲

happytoexplain a day ago | parent [-]

True, analogies are great fun, and useful for teaching. They're just rarely useful for convincing. It's hard to make a meaningful attack or defense of something, A, by pointing to a different thing, B, without some serious case-building.

	▲	phendrenad2 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'd like to gear more about this theory that analogies are unconvincing. First time I'm hearing something like this.