> Well I wish this was true. But loads of DEVs on here will claim LLMs are infallible.

No the don't. You're making a straw man rather than trying to put forth an actual argument in support of your view.

If you feel can't support your point, then don't try to make it.

It's done in a roundabout way. Usually with a variation of "you had a bad experience because you are using the tool incorrectly, get good at prompting".

That's a response to 'I don't get good results with LLMs and therefore conclude that getting good results with them is not possible'. I have never seen anyone claim that they make no mistakes if you prompt them correctly.

A straw man? An actual argument?

I responded to this parent comment:

"LLMs have shown the general public how AI can be plain wrong and shouldn't be trusted for everything."

You take issue with my response of:

"loads of DEVs on here will claim LLMs are infallible"

You're not really making sense. I'm not straw-manning anything, as I'm directly discussing the statement made. What exactly are you presuming I'm throwing a straw man over?

It's entirely valid to say "there are loads of supposed experts that don't see this point, and you're expecting the general public to?". That's clearly my statement.

You may disagree, but that doesn't make it a strawman. Nor does it make it a poorly phrased argument on my part.

Do pay better attention please. And your entire last sentence is way over the line. We're not on reddit.

This is just subjective spew.

The irony of telling someone not to be rude while being absolutely insufferable. Peak redditor behavior.

Please provide examples. Thank you!

show us the infallible comments.

HN posters know better but a lot of them won’t be honest because they want to protect their investments and/or their employer.

No they don’t. Don’t lie.