These kinds of responses are my favorite dark pattern rhetorical device, because you can assert literally _anything_ in this format and almost nobody will refute you, because the cost of refuting bullshit is 100x the cost of producing it.

Anyways, here goes.

1. Guido uses Copilot like I do - as a StackOverflow replacement to write the dumb boilerplate code. A much less flattering quote is "It doesn't save me much thinking, but [it helps] because I'm a poor typist". Also it's literally a minute or two of a three hour podcast.

2. A lot of code is autogenerated lol. Again, it's all the boring boilerplate stuff.

3. The cofounder of OpenAI is a biased source lol

4. He's an AI researcher, of course he runs that stuff.

5. Again, similar to Guido. He's using it for the boilerplate. Nothing wrong with enjoying using it as a toy, as he is here. But he's not doing serious work with it.

There's no virtue in hyping this stuff like a HODL bitcoin cultist.

Look in the context of the comment I'm actually replying to your criticisms are just completely misplaced.

>here's a bunch of hubbub and generalized excitement, and lots of talk about what could be done, or what might be done, but not very much actual doing

I am showing that indeed many top people use the tools to make themselves more productive, in direct contradiction to the comment above.

And, as I stated, your own sources say it's a mild improvement at best. Despite what you're insinuating.

Listen: it's a fun toy. Engineers love toys and shiny distractions.

Don't confuse shiny rocks for gold.

> it's a fun toy.

Keep thinking that and don't feel too bad when 21 year old zoomers are 10x more impactful than you are at work.

I will feel fucking great about that, because my stock portfolio will moon on their backs sufficiently that I can retire. But I'm not hopeful.

Hahaha. If you think software engineering is primarily about bashing out slop code as fast as possible, then there's not much I can say to you.

I believe your examples are - unironically - misleading.

1- he states that the generated code is most likely wrong. He is appreciative of it though because he is a very poor typer so he doesn't have to do that part as much

2- so that's not supporting your argument that the 'top' devs are using it. Besides it doesn't say how it's counted, nor how much time is spent reviewing and correcting it

3- actually okay. But is he using it for production code? Doesn't say

4- he definitely doesn't talk about coding, only brainstorming and writing text.

5- your best one. Still, the use case here is side projects not production

You might still be right, I definitely do not compare myself to these people, but trying to glue some sources together makes a poor argument.

And the subject on hand is more that just using LLMs, it's the role of LLMs in the dev work environment

>You might still be right, I definitely do not compare myself to these people, but trying to glue some sources together makes a poor argument.

It makes a better argument then the bold and plainly wrong claim that no one is using them and its all just "a bunch of hubbub".

Yeah you are trying to make a better argument, but picking out-of-context references from random sources that actually goes against your point.

None of the 5 sources say that AI code generation is really making them more productive