Comment by j2kun
2 days ago
The author claims it's not just that one evangelizes it, but that they become hostile when someone claims to not have the same experience in response. I don't recall Either Willison or Antirez scaring people by saying they will be left behind or that they are just afraid of becoming irrelevant. Instead they just talk about their positive experiences using it. Willison and Antirez seem to be fine to live and let live (maybe Antirez a bit less, but they're still not mean about it).
My gut says that is not a property of LLM evangelists, but a property of current internet culture in general. People with strong, divisive, and engaging opinions seem to do well (by some definition of well) online.
It's weird how some people seem to treat using an LLM as part of their personality in a borderline cult like way. So someone saying they don't use it or don't find it useful triggers an anger response in them.
That is not novel - see language/framework choice, OS (or even distro) preferences, editor wars, indentation. People develop strong opinions about tools, technology, and techniques regardless of domain. LLM maximalists just have the unfortunate capability to generate infinite content about their specific shiny thing.
If a vegan LLM evangelist crossfitter comes up to you at party, which one do they talk about first?
1 reply →
This. For every absurd LLM cheerleader, there’s a corresponding LLM minimalist who trots out the “stochastic parrot” line at every possible occasion along with the fact that they do CrossFit and don’t own a TV.
I think the actual problem is everyone tries to assert how capable or not coding agents currently are, but how useful they are depends so much on what you are trying to get them to do and also on your communication with the model. And often its hard to tell whether you're just prompting it wrong or if they're incapable of doing it.
By now we at least agree that stochastical parrots can be useful. It would be nice if the debate now was less polarized so we could focus on what makes them work better for some and worse for others other than just expectations.
Antirez:
>Skipping AI is not going to help you or your career. Think about it.
Who knows. Maybe all the AI people will have their skills atrophy and by the time the AI crash happens and none of the models can be run, they don't be employable any more. I'm happy to take that gamble if it saves my conscience.
> the AI crash happens and none of the models can be run
How could this happen with local models already in service?
1 reply →
Or maybe it will.
Smart guy, but he can speak for himself.
Thanks for clarifying for people.
And yeah, as I laid out in the article (that of course, very few people actually read, even though it was short...), I really don't mind how people make code. It's those that try so hard to convince the rest of us I find very suspect.
In my case I don’t even mind if these evangelists try so hard to convince other developers. What I do mind is that they seem to be quite successful in convincing our bosses. So we get things like mandatory LLM usage, minimum number of Claude API calls per day, every commit must be co-authored by Claude, etc.
That sounds horrible.
I'll convince you one day