> 1. The people on HN tend to think they're very clever, but they're often not as clever as they think they are. That has a lot of wide-ranging implications, from classic "engineer's disease" thinking to stuff a lot dumber.

I don't think suggesting that people are stupid is a very good argument. I think part of the reason people are for it is post like yours which are rude and not in good faith.

I'd imagine why as many people are for it on HN is for many people, it just works. Now imagine this snark about not being as clever as you think you are just because you enjoy using a tool. What's that going to do? Cause you to dig your feet in because you're being told the real reason you like these tools is because you're not very clever or you take things as a personal criticism. Yes, being told you think you are clever but you aren't really is personal.

I don't think you're posting in good faith. I certainly don't think you're going to get the real reasons people support this stuff when you act like they're stupid or suggest a lot of this is being turfed. People are using these tools because they work.

Your post says more about you than it does supporters.

▲ palmotea 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I don't think suggesting that people are stupid is a very good argument. I think part of the reason people are for it is post like yours which are rude and not in good faith.

You'll note I didn't say anyone was "stupid," if anything, I was actually saying those people were myopic and arrogant. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the concept of "engineer's disease," once you understand it, you'll see it all the time on HN.

> I don't think you're posting in good faith. I certainly don't think you're going to get the real reasons people support this stuff when you act like they're stupid or suggest a lot of this is being turfed. People are using these tools because they work.

> Your post says more about you than it does supporters.

I don't think suggestion that people are posting in bad faith is a good argument. I also detect a fair bit of binary thinking from you. All I did was post a non-exhaustive list of different reasons for that kind of content to answer the comment I was replying to.

	▲	orangedog 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The only "binary thinking" I'm using is not assuming that the reasons that people support these tools are all negative (myopic and arrogant, false sentiment, defensiveness, and pedantism). You didn't even try to suggest that a lot of people are using these tools for positive reasons. Who is being myopic and arrogant? Who is engaging in binary thinking? Consider that some people simplye find that these tools work for them.
	▲	cindyllm 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲ simoncion 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't think suggesting that people are stupid is a very good argument.

I've worked with a lot of people. Many of them are that stupid. Suggesting that these stupid people do not exist, that -if they did exist- none of them are professional programmers, and -even if they were programmers- they do not have the means to voice support for something that they're smitten with is not a good argument.

I'll also vaguely gesture at the various studies that find that the majority of conversation -by post volume- on Internet Forums is done by a small number of people. Never doubt the ability for a few loud folks [0] with lots of time on their hands to dominate a conversation. This goes like 10,000x when there's a huge amount of money sloshing around in said industry and said industry really needs to maintain a positive public reputation.

[0] ...and -sometimes- their sockpuppets...

▲ orangedog 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I didn't say that dumb people don't exist, I think positing that the reason people like these tools is because actually they're stupid isn't very compelling.

▲ simoncion 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> ...I think positing that the reason people like these tools is because actually they're stupid isn't very compelling.

And I explained why I disagreed! One "subtle" thing to note is that the claim isn't "Everyone who uses LLM-based tools and writes about the success they had is stupid.".

▲ orangedog 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Then you aren't going to get to why people are using these tools because a lot of intelligent people are using them.

▲ simoncion 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Then you aren't going to get to why people are using these tools...

I couldn't disagree more!

If you haven't already, you should watch this topical presentation from Greg K-H that was posted to HN like a week ago. [0] It's about an hour long, but you can probably watch most of it at 120->150% speed.

Notice how his praise for the tools differs from so much of the expressed positive sentiment for said tools here on HN. The "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things in a way that smells very much like astroturfing. The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions and tend to know better than to burn a ton of time squabbling with Internet Randos in a place like this... they have much better things to do with their lives.

[0] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q>

▲ palmotea 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things in a way that smells very much like astroturfing. The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions

I think that's a good observation, but I wouldn't say those people are actually astroturfing (noting you only said they smell like that).

But that "low-horsepower" vs "high-horsepower" distinction probably has a big bearing on people's attitudes towards LLMs. "Low-horsepower" people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting. It's often been remarked that LLMs feel awesome for topics you know nothing about. It's kinda like Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect for people who were never knowledgeable about any topic.

[1] "The phenomenon of a person trusting newspapers for topics which that person is not knowledgeable about, despite recognizing the newspaper as being extremely inaccurate on certain topics which that person is knowledgeable about." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect#Engl...)

▲ orangedog an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

People are writing entire apps in days. You're just jaded if that isn't impressive to you.

▲ palmotea 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

No, clearly I did not.

FYI, it's tedious and annoying for me to respond to someone who consistently misunderstands my posts. And I'm seeing a pattern in your misunderstandings. They send a message that undermines the points you're trying to make.

▲

orangedog 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

> people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting

This is why people who praise these models do? You're saying they aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences. Once again, not giving any positive reason as to why people could feel the way they do about these models. The pattern is you are engaging in the binary thinking you are complaining about.

Your sentiment is pretty clear.

▲

palmotea 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

> This is why people who praise these models do? You're saying they aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences. Once again, not giving any positive reason as to why people could feel the way they do about these models. The pattern is you are engaging in the binary thinking you are complaining about.

> Your sentiment is pretty clear.

See, this one of the frustrating things about your responses: I make some statement about some subset, and you generalize it to the universe (of AI fans) and object. The thing you're objecting to is your own misunderstanding.

	▲	orangedog 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, yeah, when you are asked why people talk about these models on HN and your answers are: myopia, funded support, taking things personally, and pedantry and then you double down on it suggesting that another reason is these people aren't capable of evaluating what they are seeing, then you are only painting those people with a negative brush. Do yo believe there are positive reasons people are adopting these models? Because there is nothing in your responses that suggest you do. I, as somebody who rarely uses these models but understands why people might, don't see any attempt at being unbiased.

▲ simoncion an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope.

You:

  You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

Me:

  If you haven't already, you should watch this topical presentation from Greg K-H that was posted to HN like a week ago.  ... Notice how his praise for the tools differs from so much of the expressed positive sentiment for said tools here on HN. ... The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions ...

▲

orangedog an hour ago | parent [-]

Thanks but I'm not going to watch it.

> people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting

Yes, this is the exact sentiment expressed. That the praise you see is because of these people with low-horsepower who aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences.

▲

simoncion an hour ago | parent [-]

> Thanks but I'm not going to watch it.

You really should! It's positive sentiment about LLM-based tools that comes from a "high-horsepower" individual. Given your commentary here, it really seems like you've not encountered much of that sort of thing, so it'd really do you some good to load it into to your databanks for use in future discussions.

	▲	orangedog an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I've encountered plenty of it on HN and elsewhere, I just don't share your view of the space.

▲ simoncion an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think that's a good observation, but I wouldn't say those people are actually astroturfing (noting you only said they smell like that).

I agree with everything you've said here [0] as well as this bit I'm quoting specifically. I would strongly disagree with any claim that positive reports from "low-horsepower" people are likely to be astroturf. I'm just noting that a lot of astroturf reads like the way the "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things.

[0] ...at least with whatever the comment said when I wrote this one ;)...

	▲	palmotea 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I agree with everything you've said here [0] as well as this bit I'm quoting specifically. I would strongly disagree with any claim that positive reports from "low-horsepower" people are likely to be astroturf. I think we're in agreement. > I'm just noting that a lot of astroturf reads like the way the "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things. The "why" behind that would be interesting to know. It could just be that we assume astroturf would be low-effort, and that praise is low-effort (even if that's the most effort the "low-horsepower" person can muster), so they read the same.

▲ orangedog 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't observe the same things on HN that you do. I see a variety of sentiment - positive, negative, low-effort and high-effort.

	▲	simoncion 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I see a variety of sentiment - positive, negative, low-effort and high-effort. Me too!

▲ Pannoniae 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As a less emotionally charged example (people get upset with being called stupid, justifiably) - the average size of an array or a list is less than 4.

With that many elements you'd be better off storing the elements as a tuple or a struct, but people often reach for a generic array container regardless.