The grifters and cheaters of our world are an opportunity cost. Who knows how much more productive or fair the world would be if we didn't tolerate them? By allowing them to succeed, we deny a world where they wouldn't need to exist.

Careful, this kind of thinking leads to ideas which are unacceptable in the current world :)

> There's a fierce artificial downplaying of AI when it comes to programming. [...] I think this is the delusional group.

This could definitely be the case. I personally wouldn't bet against AI as in all of AI. I, like many, think it's a matter of time and technology, but I do think this particular moment in time, and this particular technology is over hyped. I'll just be candid about that. Still, one day? Yeah you bet, although it appears that we're at least one fundamental breakthrough short, so the technology will be different. Today's tech will still nonetheless be fundamental though.

> I think it occurs because a lot of people's identity rests on their actual ability to program. They think your they're superior programmers [...] causes them to dismiss the technology in the face of actual experts who fear and question it.

I can't speak to the first part, with respect to what one side's biases are, as I don't really know what they're thinking, but you're almost certainly right that there's bias on both the bear and bull cases for AI. Sometimes I think it's a simple as the "line goes up" thinking in crypto just for programming and that's all that people need. I just read a lot of comments that at times feel kind of desperate to defend LLMs and so I added that last part to my original comment to see if anyone felt like adding to that thought, which you have so thanks.

> You have failed to address the controversy instead you categorize people who "defend" AI as people who don't "understand" it and you imply it's some psychological quirk or bias people have

Well, in all fairness I didn't want to make my already very long comment any longer than it already was, however in my defense, with respect to defining the controversy vs. implying there's a psychological quirk - I have seen what you can call some very strange gymnastics around what is learning or what is intelligence in, again, sort of desperate efforts to make LLMs just something that they're not. It's in those situations that I was referring to the people clearly not understanding how they work. That being said, I also did imply there was a psychological quirk but that was just because I didn't have the space nor the ability to really articulate what else might be going there. I think in parts of your response though you conveyed a valid viewpoint.

> Maybe your born with talent, so you worship and defend that talent with calls to uphold "integrity."

First, thank you, but second I don't think this was the case. I am one of those people who actually thinks talent is usually overrated, as "good enough" + perseverance does at least the same job for less in most cases. If anything, I think talent is kind of a scapegoat whenever some great goal proves to be elusive.

> Do people really want to live a shitty life getting sub 100k salaries only letting people like you take up all the high paying jobs in the name of "integrity"? No. No one does... not even you, but you have the luxury of talent or ability to master those interviews.

I think I would just respond by saying that nobody is guaranteed something just because they want it, but all of those people have the same access as anyone else to leetcode and the internet or whatever else they need to do the work to pass the interview. Bearing that in mind, cheating is obviously understandable, but just because I understand it doesn't mean I would do it, personally. I definitely don't think that it's a good thing either, but I don't think I'm high and mighty about it either. Ultimately we all act the way that we do because we don't know any better. If I knew how to be smarter I would, but I don't so I'm kind of stuck where I'm at just like the rest of the world. I make mistakes and at times I can also be dishonest too. It's life. That said, it's not like I wholly embrace the moments in my life where my actions demonstrated my limitations, at least not when it became painfully obvious to me.

> You defend integrity not because you are a stand up person, but because you have the ability to succeed without violating your integrity

I appreciate your honesty about this and I don't think there's really anyway I can disagree with it. Maybe in another life, if I were in another person's shoes, I would act differently. I mean, that makes sense to me. I can't prove otherwise. That said, knowing what I know in this life, I stand by what I said.

The last thing I'll say is why I believe we should still make our best efforts to be good, at least within our ability. That is because living for the sake of accumulating power, at the cost of doing what you believe is right, is just not in one's own best interest. In the absence of understanding what is right and what is wrong, the power that we accumulate has the same opportunity to cause tremendous harm as it does joy.

Just think about why people always love really down to earth celebrities. We see them and think that despite all their money, power, and fame, they're happy and there's something comforting about that. Can the same really be said for the contrary? I know it's a silly argument because you kind have to keep an open mind to agree with me, but it's not as undeniable as 2+2=4. Still, that's what I truly believe and you don't know me or where I've been or what I've done. However, I wouldn't think this if I wasn't sincere about it. I have had my own mistakes and there have been times in my life, like anyone, where I've been immoral and I honestly came out the other end thinking the means didn't justify the ends. But it's up to you to believe me.

Anyways, apologies to everyone for the massive response. I wish I knew how to be more succinct in response.

Nature doesn't require that we be happy, only that we procreate. Excess resources often make us feel comfortable enough to procreate, despite any unhappiness we may feel.

I think you've nailed a sad reality.

Exactly. Every time I push back on people who dismiss LLMs as not understanding, they but don't seem to realize how little we know about the brain and what "understanding" actually means, mechanistically. So even with perfect understanding of how LLMs function, that tells us nothing about whether they actually understand.

If defined operationally as being able to reliably and coherently converse about topics, make connections, solve problems and respond in novel or surprising ways, LLMs these days are at or slightly above the average human. Way above in some respects, but still below in others. It won't be long before their capabilities undeniably surpass the average.