The term “AI” to me is particular pet-peeve, as the term has been diluted to convey very little information but hype. I typically will use “LLM” or “Agents” when I mention them, as I try to be more precise in my language to facilitate better understanding.

I think calling everything slop is a emotional argument that is probably working against a good discussion more than facilitating it. I think purity tests tend to work against discussion and create larger gulfs, especially since our current world teaches people to dig in at all costs, instead of nurturing self-reflection.

I do not like that LLMs have tainted software and groups in ways we will not understand for a long time. I am worried that over-reliance on LLMs for generating code is going to impact us in similar ways to when asbestos was thought as a miracle material. Yielding so much to mega corporations seems to be a net negative to society regardless of how neat LLMs are at an intellectual level.

I have occasionally used an LLM to understand an error message or get an example of usage, but endeavor to write code myself. Similar to microplastics, I worry it has become harder and harder to ensure that things are 100% LLM free.

I resolve to “punch up” not “punch down”. While there is a lot I do not like for recent LLM and Agent frenzy, I (typically) will not criticize individual usage. I will continue to be angry at corporations and so called “leaders” who push for it everywhere. Individuals that make LLMs a majority part of their personality and praise it unironically, fall into the corps and ’leaders’ group.