[mrmetanoia]

I think the difference is people on HN are using these "AI" tools as coding assistance. For which, if you know what you're doing, they are pretty useful. They save trips to stack overflow or documentation diving and can spit out code that often is less time to fix/customize than it would have been to write. Cool.

A lot of the rest of the world are using it for other things. And at these other things, the results are less impressive. If you've had to correct a family member who got the wrong idea from whatever chat bot they asked, if you've ever had to point out the trash writing in an email someone just trusted AI to write on their behalf before it got sent to someone that mattered, or if you've ever just spent any amount of time on twitter with grok users, you should be exceptionally and profoundly aware of how unimpressive AI is for the rest of the world.

I feel we need less people complaining about the skepticism on HN and more people who understand these skeptics that hang out here already know how wonderful a productivity boost you're getting from the thing they're rightly skeptical about. Countering with "But my code productivity is up!" is next to useless information on this site.

[poopbutt10]

I don't see why my personal anecdote is any less useful than GP's claim. GP's comment isn't nuanced skepticism about product gaps, or concrete examples of inaccuracy. It's a wholesale dismissal of any utility. AGI isn't even mentioned in the article. This also seems "next to useless".

I appreciate your anecdotes on failures/embarrassment for people outside of tech- there's pretty clearly a gap in experience, understanding, and marketing hype.

I don't think it's useless to ask what that gap is, and why GP got such poor results.