I believe I did answer your question, though I'd disagree with the idea that I'm "defending" anything. There exists nuance between "pro AI" and "anti AI".

Questioning motives is denying?

When you say, “I’m just expressing an opinion, why are you doing the same”, then yes, it is denying them the same right. Don’t play games with me, we’re not the idiots you seem to think we are.

If making art is the process of getting something inspired in your head into the physical world, then it would make one an artist. AI would be a tool to achieve that.

Many people still don't consider digital artists to be artists because they use tools that make it easier than physical art.

I'm not arguing that using AI makes me a software developer. I'm saying that as a software developer, I seek to use the best tools for the job, just like any other job.

"We"

Is Sam Altman in the room with you right now?

So artists, wanting to use what you describe as the best tool for the job, should just use AI? How even is AI the best tool? This is an inane and pointless argument with a drug addict defending heroin.

What‘s the good company in this context?

We had all of those things before AI and they worked just fine and didn't require 50 Exowatts of electricity to run.

None of what you brought up as a positive are things an LLM does. Most of those things existed before the modern transformer-based LLMs were even a thing.

LLM-s are glorified text prediction engines and nothing about their nature makes them excel at formal languages. It doesn't know any rules. It doesn't have any internal logic. For example if the training data consistently exhibits the same flawed piece of code then an LLM will spit out the same flawed piece of code, because that's the most likely continuation of its current "train of thought". You would have to fine-tune the model around all those flaws and then hope some combination of a prompt won't lead the model back into that flawed data.

I've used LLMs to generate SQL, which according to you is something they should excel at, and I've had to fix literal syntax errors that would prevent the statement from executing. A regular SQL linter would instantly pick up that the SQL is wrong but an LLM can't pick up those errors because an LLM does not understand the syntax.

Is that what art is? Who doesn't consider digital artists to be artists? Point some out.

Here's the secret: talk a big game about being pro AI in the interview, then just don't use it on the job. What are they gonna do, grab your hands and put your mouse cursor on the Copilot button?

Buddy, you're a bigger idiot than I think you are.

Knowing what games are compatible and to what degree before purchasing them would make me happier.

That's what https://www.protondb.com/ is good for.

I never said anything about artists. I don't think AI has much use in artistic endeavors. I'm talking about a software development job.

And as soon as your hypocrisy is called out, you resort to name-calling. Belligerence isn't an argument, even if you fail to think of one in its place.

You should really try again, I think.

Honestly if part of their job is at all trying to get old shit to run on new operating systems AI is very useful for that task.

Part of my job is keeping a 30 year old c++ application compiling and building on newer versions of Linux. LLMs have made this a far easier experience.

What hypocrisy? You ARE an idiot.

formatters, style guides, linters, boilerplates, translation, configuration etc.

None of that is “AI” dumbass. Stop watering down the terminology.

LLMs run from cloud data canters are the thing that everyone is against, and that is what the term “AI” means. No one thinks IntelliSense is AI; no one thinks adding jslint to your CI pipeline is AI.