So you see, after so much hype and hard and soft promotion efforts ( I count your writing in the latter category), you'd think it should not be "us" figuring it out - should it not be the people who are shoving this crap down our throats?
> That's still a very tiny portion of the software developer population. I know that because I talk to people - there is a desperate need for grounded, hype-free guidance to help the rest of our industry navigate this stuff and that's what I intend to provide.
That's a very arrogant position to assume - on the one hand there is no big secret to using these tools provided you can express yourself at all in written language. However some people for various reasons, I suspect mostly those who wandered into this profession as "coders" in the last years from other, less-paid disciplines, and lacking in basic understanding of computers, plus being motivated purely extrinsically - by money - I suspect those people may treat these tools as wonder oracles and may be stupid enough to think the problem is their "prompting" and not inherent un-reliability of LLMs. But everyone else, that is those of us who understand computers at a bit deeper level, do not want to fix Sams and Darios shit LLMs. These folks promised us no less than superintelligent systems, doing this, doing that, curing cancer, writing all the code in 6 months (or is it now 5 months already), creating a society where "work is optional" etc. So again - where TF is all of this shit promised by people sponsoring your soft promotion of LLMs? Why should we develop dependence on tools built by people who obviously dont know WTF they are talking about and who have been fundamentally wrong on several ocassions over the past few years. Whatever you are trying to do, whether you honestly believe in it or not I am afraid is a fool's errand at best.