It was never any of these things, and you're misremembering if you think it was. There's never been a mono-opinion held by some all-encompassing hivemind.

As for your promise of a great leap at some vague point in the future, that's such a widely-mocked AI industry trope at this point that it's a little embarrassing you went there.

Humans do it accidentally.

And if you actually read the article, you'd see it addressed that.

> Yeah, exactly. And LLM help developers save time from writing the same thing that has be done by other developers for a thousand times.

Like a library?

It's most likely fun for you because it's novel, and for a lot of skeptics, AI novelty has long worn off.

There's a tendency to ascribe the entirety of id's technology to Carmack. Michael Abrash, as one example, was a major factor.

With regard to editorial review, an editor didn't catch the error. The target of the false quotes had to register on Ars and post a comment about it. To top it off, more than one Ars commenter was openly suspicious that he was a fake account. Only when some of the readers checked for themselves to see that the quotes were indeed falsified did it gain attention from Ars staff.