Then you must not be familiar with Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. The TL;DR is this: “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.”

“I’m just doing what the market rewards” and “if I don’t, the next guy will” are the 21st century billionaire’s “I was just following orders.” It creates a race to the bottom.

If this had existed last week, I’d have saved a few hours, but it was a kinda fun few hours and now it’s all mine. Glad to know I’m not the only one on this particular quixotic quest.

Seems like even most critics would agree LLMs are capable of producing impressive-for-the-timescale clones of existing software, but is that valuable?

The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.

Besides that 60-70% is not an acceptable hit rate and there’s already early evidence of skill atrophy in AI saturated fields like radiology. We need way more people offering more personalized care, using more judgement and offering more compassion, not a chat interface that says “you’re totally right to push back, the post nasal drip was the smoking gun.”

Maybe some forms of ML, even LLMs, become part of the solution to that shortfall, but we’re a long way from proving that’s a net positive let alone a big leap forward.

And you could have made it and then you could have been proud of it. And at least some of time, that’s more valuable than an unspecified “product”. I’m more attached to things I made than things I bought.