There's a recurring pattern on HN where any time someone talks about knocking dozens of personal projects off their list - things that almost certainly would never have actually been addressed in the finite span of a normal life, the way things go - and you AI doomers show up and demand receipts as though that's a total reasonable and definitely not obnoxious request.
It's like if you tell someone that you love your partner and they demand to sit in the cuck chair or else you're obviously lying. I keep hoping people will move past this "prove that you're actually productive" reflex, but it just keeps happening in basically every AI thread.
In reality there are many reasons not to list out projects that you've worked on with LLMs, and while "none of your damn business" is always going to be at the top, the simple truth is that I want my products and projects to be judged by what they do and how well they work, not by how they were made.
That is a pretty strong statement. And without even anecdotal evidence, it becomes very weak.
Hence the question "what's the most impressive and useful thing you have made"
But no one really has any examples. Just half baked slop they never got over the finish line.
Nobody was talking about that very believable use case. What they specifically said was "enterprise scale projects". Enterprise scale means lots of users, decades of backwards compatibility, regulation compliance, logging and auditing, reporting, role based access control and permissions, integration with other enterprise systems, etc. etc.
> "you AI doomers show up and demand receipts as though that's a total reasonable and"
Asking what large scale programs they have built is not "dooming". It's also not demanding. It's also not unreasonable.
> "definitely not obnoxious request".
Saying that it's "unreasonable and obnoxious" to ask people to justify their claims is where the likes of Theranos and Nikola electric truck company are hiding. If they don't want to talk about their stuff, they could have not commented. Since they commented it's reasonable to ask them about what they said.
Do you really think that's what they meant?
Tell me: when someone says that the shit hit the fan, do you furiously start looking around for actual shit?
2) You jump in: "how dare you not accept this obviously-true claim at face value, why are you AI doomers always insinuating that these claims are false and demanding evidence?!".
3) I comment taking the claim at face value.
4) You jump in: "idiot, how stupid are you to take the claim at face value, it's extremely obvious to everyone here that it's not meant literally".
Well if we all agree it's completely unbeleivable if taken literally, can we now have your permission to ask about the reality behind the statement? "if 'enterprise scale' is not intended to mean 'enterprise scale', what scale is the person actually talking about?
Absolutely nothing you're saying is in good faith. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
So, no: you don't have my permission. You haven't earned it.
And your dragging the conversation off topic, turning it into personal attacks, redefining what words mean, refusing to address the point, flip-flopping your position 180 degrees, refusing to acknowledge that you did that, turning it personal again, has all been good faith positive contribution, has it?