alt Hacker NewsThis takes the cake for one of the strangest replies I've ever received on here.
I'm not sure how or indeed why you draw lines from what I said to my life situation... which is relevant how?
What I apparently did not do a good enough job of conveying is that those "data from multiple sources" get cited and then people immediately reply with "those are old studies". It's circular in the same way that arguing with anti-vax people is circular.
The difference is that unlike vaccines, it's very easy for someone to see how productive they are when using LLMs properly. It's not a subtle difference.
Hence the frustration with people who keep insisting that we're imagining our own productivity. It's not a good faith inquiry.
OK, glad to hear I was mistaken, but it certainly seemed like about halfway through your first response you went off the rails and decided to take my question as some sort of personal affront. It was not the strangest response I've had on HN, but one of the strangest. I could go through with a full analysis of why I thought "this guy is having problems", but that would take a long time and as you say you aren't I guess it isn't particularly useful.
I guess we aren't going to get anything meaningful between us on this subject, because you seem to think it is like arguing with an anti-vaxxer, which funny enough I thought the same thing,
So fine, you experience a gain, you just do, and it is so clear and evident you don't need to guard yourself against being deluded despite studies suggesting that gain is not there. That seems crazy to me, I would doubt and want to verify my gain if I read a study suggesting the gain was illusory. No meaningful convergence seems possible between needing verification and not needing verification.