Comment by johnb231
7 days ago
You are missing the point. The person I replied to is complaining about the lack of empirical analysis. There is no empirical analysis in the article. Subjective blog articles are not scientific studies.
7 days ago
You are missing the point. The person I replied to is complaining about the lack of empirical analysis. There is no empirical analysis in the article. Subjective blog articles are not scientific studies.
Someone makes a blog post with the sole purpose of convincing AI skeptics to use AI and wants so badly to convince people to use AI that he even resorts to calling AI skeptics insane.
Someone else responds that video of the author actually using the tools would be more convincing.
Then you respond with essentially “no one wants to convince you and they’re too busy to try”.
Now if you misspoke and you’d like to change what you said originally to “many AI users do want to convince AI skeptics to use AI, but they only have enough time to write blog posts not publish any more convincing evidence”, then sure that could be the case.
But that ain’t what you said. And there’s no way to interpret what you said that way.
[flagged]
No need to insult actual autistic people.
The commenter you replied to was specifically talking about AI proponents who do in fact want to convince people to use AI and have spent countless hours trying to do so. The OP was highlighting a more convincing way of doing this.
If someone says “people who have a stated intention to accomplish X could do it better by doing Y”, and you respond with a generalization that “most people don’t want to accomplish X” that is nonsensical. If your comment is a generalization it makes even less sense.
Also we aren’t talking about individual developers publishing studies. The OP is asking for a livestream of a coding session. When we are talking about an blog from a well funded company or articles from multi billion dollar companies, or even just startup founders, a video is hardly a high bar.
2 replies →