That just isn't true. Windows admins are just like any other. Most are sharp dudes who know stuff, some few are slackers who don't learn.

I spent a lot of my career in the Windows admin space. That isn't true. Most Windows admins are sharp dudes, just like most Linux admins are sharp dudes. And a minority of Windows admins are slackers who don't try to learn, but a minority of Linux admins are slackers who don't try to learn.

Humans, unlike LLMs, are capable of reasoning and thinking. Thus humans, unlike LLMs, can actually be taught and improve.

People could, however, learn to not make bad code. LLMs are incapable of that feat because they do not have any understanding or ability to reason. They are strictly worse than a human.

They aren't. The guy you're replying to is just hyping them up based on nothing.

Cui bono? Jensen Huang wants you to believe AI is a necessity and that we will need 1000x the energy because he gets even richer if you believe him. It isn't true, though.

Every part of it is hype, because it does nothing useful.

Plenty of people find it useful, but maybe it's not useful for you

> Just with much dumber “people” who are getting exponentially smarter

They haven't gotten any smarter yet, let alone exponentially smarter. They are still the same dumb parrots that they were in the beginning.

It's not bullshit to me. I'm interested in seeing what a human made, not what a clanker made.

Careful there, you're going to make all the AI "artists" real mad with this one.

You reminded me to the delicious grin my art teacher let out when I brought up digital painting to her. Learned a lot about people that day.

Also electronic music, now that I think about it. Or sorry, electronic "music", as it used to be written.

> You reminded me to the delicious grin my art teacher let out when I brought up digital painting to her. Learned a lot about people that day.

Can you elaborate? I’m honestly unsure what you’re suggesting she said, because I can imagine entirely contradictory scenarios.

She followed it up with dismissive remarks about how much easier it must be.

I'm very curious what you think the alternative might have been given all this extremely on the nose context.

This thread was hilarious:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1tcsjsg/someone_on_...

Me too, but the question is how do we prove it's human made? Maybe we need a certification authority. Anybody can claim "human written code" and people like you will drool all over a clanker written code.

You're not wrong, but then again this isn't high stakes stuff. I'm ok with vibes and trust in someone's character as a measure, imperfect as those things are. The cost of being wrong is some minor annoyance that I wasted time looking at someone's AI slop, which isn't so dire that it merits a ton of effort on avoiding.

Resistance to AI is because it doesn't work. It has nothing to do with job security. It's a tech with nothing but hype, no substance at all.