Yeah, I'm currently getting nerd sniped from the discussion recordings from these.

Technically it only just started but I'm making coffee so it's starting out pretty good.

I share this story all the time to people. I consider it part of our shared lore in this industry.

This seems counterproductive to me. The tool is here. The tool has real value. The tool will get used. Might as well be part of the conversation that guides it usage productively.

If what it produced wasn't right then I just rewrite it myself. Tweaking the prompt is the least enjoyable part of the process. I find it boring and entirely un-engaging.

I use neovim's avante plugin and almost exclusively use it's Show a diff in the editor approach. Basically I treat the LLM experience like I'm doing a code review.

That said, I really only use it to get started and then start feverishly editing whatever it did. I *despise* prompt engineering.

Instead, it is an altogether boring, tedious, and frustrating exercise. If this is what the career looked like when I first started out I would probably never have taken the developer path. Probably would be a virus hunter for the CDC or something right now.

Does it do a better job at deep research than GPT? That is basically my biggest use case for LLM's these days.

I am in this post and I think I like it.

Ohhhh..... Noooo..... I barely know where to begin.

I personally would prefer the rust type system in a compiler but I am *right now* writing a language interpreter in C# and it's fine. A little clunky in places but still reasonably doable.

Despite the second point I regularly use Rust for prototyping and hacking on stuff.

Honestly Greg K-H's response in that thread gives me some hope that behind the scenes things are moving in the right direction. I just hope Linux Kernel Leadership makes some public commitments soon.