Second this. My solution is to have a 'non-AI' IDE and then a Cursor/VS Code to switch between. Deep work cannot be achieved by chatting with the coding bots, sorry.
Yeah, nah. Fourthed!
Does anybody introduce itself like that?
It's like when your date sends subtle signals, like kicking sleeping tramps in the street and snorting the flour over bread at the restaurant.
(The shocking thing is that the expression would even make sense when taken properly - "we have organized our workflows through AI-intelligent systems" -, while at this time it easily means the opposite.)
> Does anybody introduce itself like that?
Yes, I've started getting job posts sent to me that say that.
Declaring one's company "AI-first" right now is a great time-saver: I know instantly that I can disregard that company.
I’m in VSCode doing my thing, and it’s in a terminal window that occasionally needs or wants my attention. I can go off and be AI-Free for as long as I like.
Additionally, when working on microservices and on issues that don’t seem too straightforward, I use o3 and copy the whole code of the repo into the prompt and refine a plan there and then paste it as a prompt into cursor. Handy if you don’t have MAX mode, but a company-sponsored ChatGPT.
Sure, you could just add a shortcut too.
After a while, it turns into a habit.
...by you. Meanwhile, plenty of us have found a way to enhance our productivity during deep work. No need for the patronization.
In my mind you cannot do deep work while being interrupted constantly, and LLM agents are constant interruptions
Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open mind and attempting to learn from those who contradict your beliefs.
You could have asked for tips since I said I've found a way to work deeply with them, but instead chose to assume that you knew better. This kind of attitude will stunt your ability to adopt these programs in the same way that many people were dismissive about personal computers or the internet and got left behind.
Instead of
> Meanwhile, plenty of us have found a way to enhance our productivity during deep work. No need for the patronization.
you could have written
> Personally, I found doing X does enhance my productivity during deep work.
Why it's better: 1) cuts out the confrontation (“you're being patronizing!”), 2) offers the information directly instead of merely implying that you've found it, and 3) speaks for yourself and avoids the generalization about “plenty of people”, which could be taken as a veiled insult (“you must be living as a hermit or something”).
Next:
> You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy.
Even if the comment were a No True Scotsman, I would not have made that fact the central thesis of this paragraph. Instead, I might have explained the error in the argument instead. Advantages: 1) you can come out clean in the case that you might be wrong about the fallacy, and 2) the commenter might appreciate the insight.
Reason you're wrong in this case: The commenter referred entirely to their own experience and made no “true programmer” assertions.
Next:
> Essentially, this is a skill issue [...] Dunning–Kruger curve [...] chose to assume that you knew better. [...]
I would have left out these entire two paragraphs. As best as I can tell, they contain only personal attacks. As a result, the reader comes away feeling like your only purpose here is to put others down. Instead, when you wrote
> You could have asked for tips
I personally would have just written out the tips. Advantage: the reader may find it useful in the best case, and even if not, at least appreciate your contribution.
Soulofmischief’s main point is that meesles made an inappropriate generalization. Meesles said that something was impossible to do, and soulofmischief pointed out that you can't really infer that it's impossible for everyone just because you couldn't find a way. This is a perfectly valid point, but it wasn't helped by soulofmischief calling the generalization “patronizing”.
Bluefirebrand pushed back on that by merely stating that their experience and intuition match those of meesles, but soulofmischief then interpreted that as implying they're not a real programmer and called it a No True Scotsman fallacy.
It went downhill from there with soulofmischief trying to reiterate their point but only doing so in terms of insults such as the Dunning-Kruger line.
I find agent mode incredibly distracting and it does get in the way of very deep focus for implementation for myself for the work I do... but not always. It has serious value for some tasks!
It's possible that the domain or the complexity of the problems are the deciding factor for success with AI supported programming. Statements like 'you'll be left behind' or 'it's a skill issue' are as helpful as 'It fails miserably'
I think there's still room for thought augmentation via LLMs here. Years back when I used Obsidian, I created probably the first or second copilot-for-Obsidian plugin and I found it very helpful, even though GPT-3 was generally pretty awful. I still find myself in deep flow, thinking in abstract, working alongside my agent to solve deep problems in less time than I otherwise would.
pushing back against judgement and condescension is not judgemental and condescending.
> may not really exist
I'm open to reading over any resources you would like to provide, maybe it's "real", maybe it isn't, but I have personally both experienced and witnessed the effect in myself, other individuals and groups. It's a good heuristic for certain scenarios, even if it isn't necesarily generalizable.
Meanwhile, you have absolutely been judgemental and condescending yourself. If you really keep the open mind that you profess, you'll take a moment to reflect on this and not dismiss it out of hand. It does not do you any favors to blissfully assume everyone is wrong about you and obliviously continue to be judgmental and condescending.
I think if you read my own comments again you will realize I make no such assumptions at all, and have been open to criticism from those who made a genuine attempt to give feedback.
How do you work deeply with them? Looking for some tips.