Personability

It's a writing style. You associate it with arrogance and yet, it's not inherently arrogant. Someone who writes like that isn't being arrogant all the time just because they have a certain writing style. Everyone has their own writing styles, and while some are clearly less enjoyable than others to consume, we live in a society, not a factory producing experiences palatable to everyone.

That's still a suggestion, and in the same class of comment.

I'm kind of addicted, honestly. This might turn me into a Vim user. Some bits could definitely be explained better, like the T: and F: operators but otherwise I think I'm going to spend many hours on this website.

And this is good for academia?

Nah, the more obtrusive an ad is, the more profit the advertiser makes.

?

You see, this is the kind of thing I like to see. It's vibecoded, which is disappointing, but it's an example of what kitty can do.

Aesthetics, likely.

Also makes it easier to multitask, I assume.

Suggestions can go either way. "Use an LLM." and "Don't use an LLM." are in the same class of comment. It's quite biased to treat one as a negative comment and the other as a suggestion.

I am curious. What makes you say generic LLMs will improve? I mean, obviously, they will, but to what extent? How can we know what they will or will not be capable of by the time we reach the limit of feasible improvement? Will they ever be able to explain in a way humans can easily digest?

But how many people of this modern society care for Greek epics? Or even works equivalent?

I can agree with the claim that people don't place value on learning new things. It may be anecdotal, but I know that a large portion of people I have talked to genuinely do not care. It's sad, but true. I see it all the time in person and through social media.

A week is more than enough time in regards to something such as this.

Not an apt comparison.

How come? Revenue seems like a more reasonable metric in the context of companies than self reported 'productivity.'

Well, that's your problem. You're scanning.

I find that capitalization certainly appeals to me more, as someone who reads a lot, but a lack of capitalization doesn't make it any harder for me to read a text, so I'm confused what the issue is here.

Sometimes a little arrogance is good, no?

You either don't know many people or the people you do know aren't that smart. Maybe both.

'Too much' for what?

In order to quantify whether something is too much, you need to quantify what an optimal or better baseline would be.

Suspicion and resistance isn't all that dangerous for a 'superintelligence,' especially if said superintelligence obfuscates the true danger, using others as scapegoats, until it's too late for humanity to do anything about it.

You shouldn't have to compromise on the things you like to do.

What is the implication you're trying to make here? Because if you're trying to 'delete all humans' there are far more efficient ways to do it. So I can only presume you're trying to make a claim about something.

I love reading. If AI writing becomes exceptionally good, to the point that I cannot distinguish it from human writing, I will continue to read. But I will desperately avoid anything that has even a slight sense of AI. It is not the quality I care about, but the author.

sigh

Many jokes aren't amusing to the people not intended to receive them.

If it's a matter of whether the person using it is good at programming or not, then it's just the programmer programming with more steps.

Then the thing you enjoyed was not programming. It was seeing your ideas exist. Which isn't wrong, but it's essential for you to admit that.

We've commoditized programming because it often gives an output that can lead to many beneficial things. But that does not mean that programming itself isn't entertainment.

Making art is often considered entertainment, and it can also be commoditized. The difference between entertainment and work is often thin, dictated by personal enjoyment, not how one is paid. I can be paid for something I find very entertaining. I can also be paid for something I find dull.

If the thing I find entertaining disappears, it's reasonable for me to feel grief. For something I enjoyed is no longer available to me, at least not in full.

There's a community around programming, much like chess and basketball. Seeing that community deteriorate into solely programming for profit, and using AI to do so, is tragic. Programming has been very focused on profit for a long time, but now even those who think it fun are debating on whether or not to offload their work to a machine that does all the work for them.

That doesn't disprove the initial claim at all. You don't even address it. Even if they saw it wrongly, that still doesn't mean they see things the same.