Post #1954176

2026-04-27 19:37 UTC

once again seeing a lot of legit anti-AI people boosting a post/article seeming to be anti-LLM, which is (a) not actually anti-LLM, and (b) mostly or entirely written by one 💀 hell, they even have a post on their blog specifically about how to "properly" integrate "AI" into your workflow as a coder

Replies (6)

@vantiss@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-27 19:38

at this time it has almost 450 boosts

Open ##2285636
@SRLevine@neuromatch.social 2026-04-27 19:53

@vantiss@social.treehouse.systems Whoops, unboosted now. sighs heavily

Open ##2285638
@itsmaya@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-27 21:59

@vantiss@social.treehouse.systems *sigh*, not to mention the top- level summary of "LLMs can't possibly move toward AGI" was a debate back in like the 60s and consensus resoundingly landed on, "there's no possible way this would result in anything remotely resembling AGI" and it's never changed since.

Open ##2285639
@sotolf@polymaths.social 2026-04-28 07:52

@vantiss@social.treehouse.systems Yeah, I read that one and was confused, it didn't even argue what it sets out to argue from my interpretation, the title and description seems to talk about the LLM coding a better LLM that's coding a better LLM etc, while the article argues that feeding it's own output into its own training material makes it worse, which seems kind of self evident. I was more confused after having read it.

Open ##2285641
@aburka@hachyderm.io 2026-04-28 19:50

@vantiss@social.treehouse.systems even the toot is obviously LLM-written

Open ##2285642
@alys@selfy.army 2026-04-28 22:24

@vantiss@social.treehouse.systems even the post promoting it has some AI tells. not enough to be highly confident but enough that i think people should have been more skeptical off the bat.

Open ##2285644