Rendered at 09:29:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
kazinator 6 hours ago [-]
I have an alternative view which is that sycophancy erodes trust in AI, from those who are not seeking validation from a machine, but information or advice.
If you're looking for advice in a situation where you are not sure of what the correct choices are, you will find LLM chat AI to go in circles. It says one thing. Something is dodgy about it, so you raise a tentative objection (as a non-expert). The thing does a "you are completely right, I apologize" about face and then says something different, and things have begun to slide into uncertainty.
That might not exactly be sycophancy, but it's basically the same thing: producing responses that are reflection of what is in the chat, rather than any real shit.
Pick any topic where people disagree. It could be an entirely technical topic in which engineers have settled the questions, and the only contrarians are crackpots. The problem is that the crackpots are out there writing, and this is snarfed into the training data. Crackpots use certain ways of talking about certain subjects. If you use similar vocabulary and concepts that align with some crackpot theory, the AI simply starts predicting tokens according to that, and you are now in crackpot land: what you are saying is validated using the crackpot terms. Next, write in a way that reintroduces rigidity: proper terminology and correct concepts, and, whoa, the AI is an engineer again, contradicting the previous crackpot shit.
seizethecheese 5 hours ago [-]
Perhaps only a small minority want quality out of information product, while most want satisfying simplicity. This is definitely how the news plays out.
I recently built an ai chart product that attempts to add more nuance by injecting extra models to jump in when the first model misses the mark. (http://pellmell.au So far it seems like only a minority of people like it. The main feedback is that answers are confusing or too much to read
tonyedgecombe 2 hours ago [-]
I learnt a long time ago that most people don't want their problems solved, they just want to vent.
chrisjj 29 minutes ago [-]
> The problem is that the crackpots are out there writing, and this is snarfed into the training data.
No, the problem is the chatbot pretends to be an AI answer engine.
Recognise it is simply a zero-intelligence search engine, and you'll not be surprised at all to get crackpot writings from the web.
> write in a way that reintroduces rigidity
... and do not be surpised to get rigid crackpot writings from the web.
donatj 13 hours ago [-]
> This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment
I believe this is a larger problem than just AI.
The internet has helped people surround themselves with only voices that agree with them and validate them, often to their detriment.
There are entire online communities urging people to cut others out of their lives over the slightest disagreement.
overgard 12 hours ago [-]
Yeah, a lot of it isn't even really about people's choice though. Like, I have so many click-baity things in my YouTube feed even though I ignore almost all of it, because just one click and suddenly that's a thing it's going to show me 10x. I wish there was a place I could go for tech news that just didn't talk about AI. I'm so over it.
ehnto 6 hours ago [-]
I think what frustrates me about the constant AI talk, is that it's like a global bikeshedding/yak shaving convention. It's an onslaught of details and opinions that don't matter that much. People arguing about single percentile benchmark differences like it will make or break their next project.
I get it, we can use AI agents, and they keep improving. Great, now calm down and go build stuff, and show me the stuff. I really think LLMs and agents are incredible, but I don't want to hear that over and over again for another 5 years.
HN is particularly bad for it right now. Where are all the innovations, cool technical side projects etc happening outside of LLMs?
morgoths_bane 2 hours ago [-]
>I get it, we can use AI agents, and they keep improving. Great, now calm down and go build stuff, and show me the stuff.
I completely agree with this sentiment. What I have seen is that these types of people never show the results of their work, they only discuss how productive they were or how fast it was to develop their project. The actual details of the project are not really mentioned.
In the rare event they do show their project, there's three categories: a worse version of something else that already exists (e.g. their version of Counter Strike that is less fun, rewriting some Python library into Rust but is now also worse), a dashboard, a visually engaging website you'll find interesting for less than 10 minutes and then never touch again.
I am not even an LLM hater, I am just not that impressed with majority of what has been built. Honestly I think back in the 90s I was far more impressed with the early websites that were totally garbage by today's standards. I remember spending so much time on the US Treasury's website as a kid learning everything about how currency works, I do not think I have ever had that level of engagement or fascination with anything that was generated by an LLM or where an LLM had significant support in the development.
Certainly this technology is nascent, however allegedly it should be making us far more productive so in the fourish years it's been around I feel like I should have witnessed something interesting by now. Perhaps I am a curmudgeon, but even in that case I think that there should at least be something else that's taking the world by storm and I am just not seeing it either.
Maybe there are some cool LLM creations, I think the speed at which it creates is also its own weakness. If anyone can create things really quickly, that includes people who are lazy and lack imagination, so then we're inundated with so much slop. Increasing accessibility does not mean that the quality will be maintained. Much like National Parks, if we make sensitive wilderness areas as accessible as possible that will degrade the quality significantly with the arrival of so many tourists, thus the parks have to consider the balance between preservation and conservation. Therefore, it was better when art et al. required some time, intention and skill before it could be shared with the world. These restrictions inherently kept the balance of quality much like how limits of accessibility in National Parks preserve the natural beauty.
jaggederest 12 hours ago [-]
Agreed, I think AI is the bees knees but I already spend 6+ hours a day thinking about it, more is unhelpful. I wish for something with the quality of discourse of HN but without being so monomaniacally focused on tech-du-jour.
dotancohen 5 hours ago [-]
> I wish there was a place I could go for tech news that just didn't talk about AI.
Just write an agent to parse HN. Oh wait...
darkmarmot 12 hours ago [-]
It's like it turns everyone into a CEO with all the yes men they could ever ask for! Never goes wrong!
13 hours ago [-]
romaniitedomum 8 hours ago [-]
> This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment
The obvious counterpoint is the large number of complaints about OpenAI's excessively sycophantic models back in April 2026, which led to them rolling back to a previous and less sycophantic model. I think there are those who are susceptible to model sycophancy, but it's definitely not most users. I have a vague, half-formed intuition that many of those susceptible to sycophancy are those who use AI for non-technical, non-work uses, such as inter-personal relationship questions.
As for me, as soon as I see any hint of sycophancy in a response I either stop what I'm doing or I tell the model to stop being an idiot.
recursive 8 hours ago [-]
People are drawn to nicotine use. And still people complain about smoke.
Kattywumpus 14 hours ago [-]
I don't know. Upvotes often do the same thing, especially in siloed communities. I feel like this is a larger problem -- people leaning into extremifying their views or just playing to an audience -- even though one might frame it as "prosocial" because it happens within the context of an online community.
matheusmoreira 13 hours ago [-]
> Upvotes often do the same thing, especially in siloed communities.
Yeah. I've gotten caught in this pattern here on HN. Post something, there's some disagreement but then I see the quiet upvotes trickling in, sometimes by the dozen. That sort of signal slowly convinced me I was right about plenty of stuff.
I used AI to datamine all of my HN comments and find those patterns. Then I started asking the AI to steelman the hell out of my world view, every single argument.
gryfft 13 hours ago [-]
How would you say your views have changed since then?
matheusmoreira 7 hours ago [-]
Biggest change was brazilian vs american laws. I had more knowledge of and respect for US laws than those of my own country, and Claude essentially fixed that. I started studying the law with Claude whenever I'd get into some argument involving copyright, and it started picking up on this pattern and showing me counterpoints where brazilian law precisely defined things that americans had to pay lawyers to go to court and get a judge to create precedent for.
AI measurably lowered the number of absolute claims I've been making. Tended to generalize and radicalize too much which would invite people to respond to the tone and the extremism instead of disproving the underlying idea. That sort of reply would actually reinforce my beliefs: if I was wrong, people would simply refute it. AI attacked my points with counterexamples until I was able to refine them into a core that's actually true.
These little distilled kernels of truth were the most valuable results. I found that many of my arguments actually have an underlying idea that holds up under scrutiny, but nobody cares because I try to prove it via extreme arguments. One such idea is anti-impossibility: laws and rules are all fine, but making it structurally impossible for people to disobey them is unacceptable. I used to try to argue that idea by defending running red lights which persuaded no one. Now I've identified the real idea and can make a much better argument for it.
smcg 13 hours ago [-]
Both could be true. People follow incentives.
alexalx666 53 minutes ago [-]
any close relationship forms a dependence. If you talk to something that poses as a helpful human 8 hours a day to do your job, you already spending more time with this "person" than with your loved ones
accountrequired 14 hours ago [-]
You're absolutely right!
pwdisswordfishq 13 hours ago [-]
It's a pretty overdone joke at this point, don't you think?
tom_ 13 hours ago [-]
It's not a joke-it's an honest fact.
jihadjihad 12 hours ago [-]
I dunno. The seams of the joke are still load-bearing IMO.
almostdeadguy 13 hours ago [-]
You're right to push back. And honestly, this reframes the entire thing.
accountrequired 13 hours ago [-]
You made an excellent point! (could not resist that one)
roughly 8 hours ago [-]
This feels like one of those articles that’s gonna come to mind again and again over the next couple decades.
SwellJoe 10 hours ago [-]
I've said before that in one small way, having access to the sycophantic models is like being a billionaire: You never have to hear "no" or "that's not a good idea".
And, it has the same deleterious effect on your mental health. I could name a bunch of billionaires that behave like sociopaths, and they're often seemingly miserable while doing it. I'm sure some of them started out as sociopaths, but they rarely behaved that way so obviously early in their rise.
theturtle 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
davesiknow 14 hours ago [-]
[dead]
daun_gee 14 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
LAC-Tech 14 hours ago [-]
I think this goes along way to explain people's very defensive reactions when you are skeptical about Agentic Development.
artnanika 14 hours ago [-]
Those are two different things. Chatgpt being sycophantic while playing the role of a therapist with a teenager is much different from Codex being sycophantic while reviewing user feedback. The former is extremely dangerous for society.
LAC-Tech 13 hours ago [-]
I make no societal judgments; just that the nastiness of the reactions I get suggests something more than technical choice is going on.
I had one prominent "influencer" publicly challenge me to a coding competition over it. It was very weird.
13 hours ago [-]
qarl2 14 hours ago [-]
I'm one of the people who gets accused of this. I don't mind skepticism. But every time I turn around, someone's claiming nobody gets any value from these tools and anyone who says otherwise is deluded or running a scam. That gets really old.
sidrag22 13 hours ago [-]
I've had one conversation that was sorta like this, it was around the time some kid kept releasing videos of him interacting with a very bad TTS gpt model or something and it would give very very bad answers confidently.
Their frame of reference was that, and this was at a time when opus 4.5 was around. Hard to expect a reasonable conversation when one person has such a different view of what the tools are capable of.
LAC-Tech 13 hours ago [-]
I can believe people get value out of them. I think I do.
But "OH MY GOD EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED THE OLD WAY IS DEAD 10X MORE PRODUCTIVE" - no. If that were true, we'd notice it in the software all around us.
qarl2 13 hours ago [-]
I think we are noticing it. Are you not?
I've shipped three software projects in the last two months. I shipped zero in the preceding year.
Right now I'm building a system to decompile MAME ROM games into idiomatic JavaScript. It completes one game in about 3 days - complete with extensive commenting. I started it about 2 weeks ago.
I'm not sure "EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED" but if you're not seeing dramatic change, I suspect you're not looking.
Planktonne 13 hours ago [-]
> if you're not seeing dramatic change, I suspect you're not looking
If the people claiming that everything has changed were even a fraction as productive as they think, then it would be visible even to people who weren't looking.
As it is, a lot of people are actively looking but still not seeing it.
qarl2 13 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
chaps 12 hours ago [-]
"you should probably get your eyes checked."
Don't be a jerk. A lot of people have had bad experiences with these systems from people basically saying exactly what you're saying. This "you should get your eyes checked" mentality is pervasive with the nerds who confidently say that their analysis is solid when it's... not. It's a big problem in communities that have non-conventional videogame puzzles for example. Someone will come in, announce some novel solution.... leading to a four hour fight about the efficacy of LLMs, only to find a mistake in their code the next day.. never to be seen again.
Mind you, I'm not saying that these systems aren't great at reverse engineering and whatnot. They're spectacularly good at that. But RE is a relatively constrained problem because everything is still right in front of you. For complicated problems where the signal is mixed between noise... less so.
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
As near as I can tell - your argument boils down to "I've seen other people make mistakes so you must be also."
chaps 12 hours ago [-]
If that's what you got from it, then I hope you have a good life.
Be kinder, friend.
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
If you can point to a single error in my argument I would love to talk to you about it.
Otherwise, you have a good life as well.
chaps 11 hours ago [-]
My point is just that you're talking past people and being an asshole in the process. Not everything is about winning an argument. Lower your temperature and you'll have more productive discussions that revolve around disagreements.
Cheers.
qarl2 11 hours ago [-]
No. I am not talking past anyone. I am providing cogent argumentation and evidence. And I'm being met with nonsense and platitudes.
And... I didn't start it.
Cheers.
EDIT: Good choice.
11 hours ago [-]
Planktonne 12 hours ago [-]
I'm pleased for you, but these tools have been out for many, many weeks, and there are many, many people claiming incredible productivity gains.
Where's the rest of it?
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
I just showed you something that would have been considered a miracle one year ago.
And your response was "So what - show me another one."
Planktonne 12 hours ago [-]
I'm not disputing that it's a hard thing to do, but we had decompilers before; "miracle" is rather stretching it.
Even granting that framing though, the claimed increase in productivity isn't a one-off, but asserted for everyone using them; you're claiming mass-produced miracles but trying to depend on a single example.
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
> but we had decompilers before
Cite one example of a decompiler that provides English names and comments.
I'm sure it's useful for that, but we've had pretty good decompilers before AI.
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
I would love for you to cite a single one.
It must take a binary executable and derive English names for the memory addresses.
overgard 12 hours ago [-]
I used to use dotPeek all the time back in like 2012. There are also things like Ghidra that the NSA made. I dunno, google them, there are a lot. I'm not saying LLMs aren't useful here, just that it's not a huge deal. Also, why are AI people always making tools to take other people's IP? You are kind of fucking with people's intellectual property without permission it seems like. I'm not saying it's the crime of the century or anything but it's distressing how many AI projects come out of "let me repackage something someone else made"
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
> there are a lot
There are none.
Ghidra does not provide semantic names.
dotPeek shows you the symbols that were not stripped from the .NET.
Neither of these can do what I asked.
fragmede 12 hours ago [-]
lol you think he hasn't heard of Ghidra? How stupid do you think he is?
bigstrat2003 13 hours ago [-]
> if you're not seeing dramatic change, I suspect you're not looking.
Ironically, this is the inverse of the very thing you complained about people doing to you.
qarl2 13 hours ago [-]
Except I'm providing evidence.
xracy 7 hours ago [-]
I'm seeing more examples of you saying you're providing evidence than of you actually providing evidence. So far I've heard a single anecdote about what you did.
That's a pretty far cry from the "evidence" you claim to have dropped on multiple comments.
qarl2 4 hours ago [-]
LOL. Providing a counter example is far from just an anecdote.
LAC-Tech 12 hours ago [-]
I think we are noticing it. Are you not?
I am not. Congratulations on your side project.
qarl2 12 hours ago [-]
Projects, plural.
And weren't you the one who started this complaining of nastiness?
qarl2 4 hours ago [-]
I'm sorry downvoters - it's true. In his opening statement he complained about nastiness and then became extremely nasty himself, when I had said nothing like that to him. Other than just disagree and provide evidence.
veqq 13 hours ago [-]
> I think we are noticing it. Are you not?
The software around us seems worse than ever, constantly breaking and significantly worse than 1-3 decades ago.
pc86 13 hours ago [-]
You think the software around today is worse than software in the late 90s?
qarl2 13 hours ago [-]
I guess my experience is different than yours - and I'm providing evidence.
chrisjj 12 hours ago [-]
> But every time I turn around, someone's claiming nobody gets any value from these tools
Really? I find agreement that gullible users get something they value, even if it is worthless.
atleastoptimal 15 hours ago [-]
This is true, but likely happening in talk therapy too with overly sycyphantic therapists
jalev 14 hours ago [-]
Sure, but there is a marked difference between a therapist and an LLM Chatbot: you can't talk to your therapist for +4h a day, at any time convenient to yourself. It's also not a guarantee you're going to hit upon a therapist that is like that, versus a product that is very literally intended to maximise your usage of it.
paimapi 14 hours ago [-]
a therapist should, if they follow their training, not be a sycophant whatsoever. CBT, for eg, is a multi-step process including Socratic self-dialogue, reframing practices, etc to guide the person towards the development of insight and healthier coping mechanisms
lstodd 7 hours ago [-]
Any good therapist should train you in the methods of coping with and eventually overcoming your problem. This boils down to private grad+postgrad psychology/psychiatry course, because to cope+overcome you have to understand what's going on and there is no one who can do shit but you yourself.
But that is only ~half of job. The other half consists of gently reminding one that not all is lost yet.
There is no LLM that can do this and I think there never will be.
If you're looking for advice in a situation where you are not sure of what the correct choices are, you will find LLM chat AI to go in circles. It says one thing. Something is dodgy about it, so you raise a tentative objection (as a non-expert). The thing does a "you are completely right, I apologize" about face and then says something different, and things have begun to slide into uncertainty.
That might not exactly be sycophancy, but it's basically the same thing: producing responses that are reflection of what is in the chat, rather than any real shit.
Pick any topic where people disagree. It could be an entirely technical topic in which engineers have settled the questions, and the only contrarians are crackpots. The problem is that the crackpots are out there writing, and this is snarfed into the training data. Crackpots use certain ways of talking about certain subjects. If you use similar vocabulary and concepts that align with some crackpot theory, the AI simply starts predicting tokens according to that, and you are now in crackpot land: what you are saying is validated using the crackpot terms. Next, write in a way that reintroduces rigidity: proper terminology and correct concepts, and, whoa, the AI is an engineer again, contradicting the previous crackpot shit.
I recently built an ai chart product that attempts to add more nuance by injecting extra models to jump in when the first model misses the mark. (http://pellmell.au So far it seems like only a minority of people like it. The main feedback is that answers are confusing or too much to read
No, the problem is the chatbot pretends to be an AI answer engine.
Recognise it is simply a zero-intelligence search engine, and you'll not be surprised at all to get crackpot writings from the web.
> write in a way that reintroduces rigidity
... and do not be surpised to get rigid crackpot writings from the web.
I believe this is a larger problem than just AI.
The internet has helped people surround themselves with only voices that agree with them and validate them, often to their detriment.
There are entire online communities urging people to cut others out of their lives over the slightest disagreement.
I get it, we can use AI agents, and they keep improving. Great, now calm down and go build stuff, and show me the stuff. I really think LLMs and agents are incredible, but I don't want to hear that over and over again for another 5 years.
HN is particularly bad for it right now. Where are all the innovations, cool technical side projects etc happening outside of LLMs?
I completely agree with this sentiment. What I have seen is that these types of people never show the results of their work, they only discuss how productive they were or how fast it was to develop their project. The actual details of the project are not really mentioned.
In the rare event they do show their project, there's three categories: a worse version of something else that already exists (e.g. their version of Counter Strike that is less fun, rewriting some Python library into Rust but is now also worse), a dashboard, a visually engaging website you'll find interesting for less than 10 minutes and then never touch again.
I am not even an LLM hater, I am just not that impressed with majority of what has been built. Honestly I think back in the 90s I was far more impressed with the early websites that were totally garbage by today's standards. I remember spending so much time on the US Treasury's website as a kid learning everything about how currency works, I do not think I have ever had that level of engagement or fascination with anything that was generated by an LLM or where an LLM had significant support in the development.
Certainly this technology is nascent, however allegedly it should be making us far more productive so in the fourish years it's been around I feel like I should have witnessed something interesting by now. Perhaps I am a curmudgeon, but even in that case I think that there should at least be something else that's taking the world by storm and I am just not seeing it either.
Maybe there are some cool LLM creations, I think the speed at which it creates is also its own weakness. If anyone can create things really quickly, that includes people who are lazy and lack imagination, so then we're inundated with so much slop. Increasing accessibility does not mean that the quality will be maintained. Much like National Parks, if we make sensitive wilderness areas as accessible as possible that will degrade the quality significantly with the arrival of so many tourists, thus the parks have to consider the balance between preservation and conservation. Therefore, it was better when art et al. required some time, intention and skill before it could be shared with the world. These restrictions inherently kept the balance of quality much like how limits of accessibility in National Parks preserve the natural beauty.
The obvious counterpoint is the large number of complaints about OpenAI's excessively sycophantic models back in April 2026, which led to them rolling back to a previous and less sycophantic model. I think there are those who are susceptible to model sycophancy, but it's definitely not most users. I have a vague, half-formed intuition that many of those susceptible to sycophancy are those who use AI for non-technical, non-work uses, such as inter-personal relationship questions.
As for me, as soon as I see any hint of sycophancy in a response I either stop what I'm doing or I tell the model to stop being an idiot.
Yeah. I've gotten caught in this pattern here on HN. Post something, there's some disagreement but then I see the quiet upvotes trickling in, sometimes by the dozen. That sort of signal slowly convinced me I was right about plenty of stuff.
I used AI to datamine all of my HN comments and find those patterns. Then I started asking the AI to steelman the hell out of my world view, every single argument.
AI measurably lowered the number of absolute claims I've been making. Tended to generalize and radicalize too much which would invite people to respond to the tone and the extremism instead of disproving the underlying idea. That sort of reply would actually reinforce my beliefs: if I was wrong, people would simply refute it. AI attacked my points with counterexamples until I was able to refine them into a core that's actually true.
These little distilled kernels of truth were the most valuable results. I found that many of my arguments actually have an underlying idea that holds up under scrutiny, but nobody cares because I try to prove it via extreme arguments. One such idea is anti-impossibility: laws and rules are all fine, but making it structurally impossible for people to disobey them is unacceptable. I used to try to argue that idea by defending running red lights which persuaded no one. Now I've identified the real idea and can make a much better argument for it.
And, it has the same deleterious effect on your mental health. I could name a bunch of billionaires that behave like sociopaths, and they're often seemingly miserable while doing it. I'm sure some of them started out as sociopaths, but they rarely behaved that way so obviously early in their rise.
I had one prominent "influencer" publicly challenge me to a coding competition over it. It was very weird.
Their frame of reference was that, and this was at a time when opus 4.5 was around. Hard to expect a reasonable conversation when one person has such a different view of what the tools are capable of.
But "OH MY GOD EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED THE OLD WAY IS DEAD 10X MORE PRODUCTIVE" - no. If that were true, we'd notice it in the software all around us.
I've shipped three software projects in the last two months. I shipped zero in the preceding year.
Right now I'm building a system to decompile MAME ROM games into idiomatic JavaScript. It completes one game in about 3 days - complete with extensive commenting. I started it about 2 weeks ago.
I'm not sure "EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED" but if you're not seeing dramatic change, I suspect you're not looking.
If the people claiming that everything has changed were even a fraction as productive as they think, then it would be visible even to people who weren't looking.
As it is, a lot of people are actively looking but still not seeing it.
Don't be a jerk. A lot of people have had bad experiences with these systems from people basically saying exactly what you're saying. This "you should get your eyes checked" mentality is pervasive with the nerds who confidently say that their analysis is solid when it's... not. It's a big problem in communities that have non-conventional videogame puzzles for example. Someone will come in, announce some novel solution.... leading to a four hour fight about the efficacy of LLMs, only to find a mistake in their code the next day.. never to be seen again.
Mind you, I'm not saying that these systems aren't great at reverse engineering and whatnot. They're spectacularly good at that. But RE is a relatively constrained problem because everything is still right in front of you. For complicated problems where the signal is mixed between noise... less so.
Be kinder, friend.
Otherwise, you have a good life as well.
Cheers.
And... I didn't start it.
Cheers.
EDIT: Good choice.
Where's the rest of it?
And your response was "So what - show me another one."
Even granting that framing though, the claimed increase in productivity isn't a one-off, but asserted for everyone using them; you're claiming mass-produced miracles but trying to depend on a single example.
Cite one example of a decompiler that provides English names and comments.
Silent Hill 1 PC https://youtu.be/0niadQJmYx0
Super Smash Bros/other GameCube and Wii games https://www.reddit.com/r/decomps/comments/1uvttvy/moderngekk...
It must take a binary executable and derive English names for the memory addresses.
There are none.
Ghidra does not provide semantic names.
dotPeek shows you the symbols that were not stripped from the .NET.
Neither of these can do what I asked.
Ironically, this is the inverse of the very thing you complained about people doing to you.
That's a pretty far cry from the "evidence" you claim to have dropped on multiple comments.
I am not. Congratulations on your side project.
And weren't you the one who started this complaining of nastiness?
The software around us seems worse than ever, constantly breaking and significantly worse than 1-3 decades ago.
Really? I find agreement that gullible users get something they value, even if it is worthless.
But that is only ~half of job. The other half consists of gently reminding one that not all is lost yet.
There is no LLM that can do this and I think there never will be.