Post

this is the kind of statement that - did people like this care to actually have a normal conversation with people who they describe as having psychosis - would be downgraded at the very least to “we don’t know” but that would require allowing your priors to be. challenged

WADR i've never seen you challenge your priors on this issue.

my priors got challenged in january of this year. i was firmly on the side that most of this website was on in december of 2025.

there are a lot of people that are both my friends and people i know online, and i have a posting history to show, that i was insanely skeptical and fed up with AI hype in 2025 and before. i used to look down on people who were using it in software.

i had to really sit down and analyze things in 2026.

I think there's a genuine disconnect between programmers and creative career folks on this. I have genuinely tried to incorporate this shit in my process and it is basically useless for me. Pointing that out does not mean I haven't challenged my priors.

That's a part of this conversation that I've only seen raised recently: there is a ton of domain-specific training information (every public GitHub repo, every language's public docs) for having LLMs generate code, and it's possible to automate the loop of generating and testing code.

This has led software devs to wildly overestimate how useful these tools are outside of their field. They often don't seem to realize that there were a ton of structural and data-availability advantages for LLM use in coding that can't be generalized to any other field

There's definitely some stuff that can be generalized (when used right, LLMs can be good for search), but I definitely don't think it's as general as the most ardent pro-LLM people think it will be.

Like, how many dumb, everyday problems do software engineers solve with one-shot throwaway scripts? That's not within reach of most ordinary people, but it's possible you could get even a local model to one-shot that kind of simple problem pretty reliably.