AI is such a huge expectations dichotomy. For those of us used to the continual disappointment that pre-LLM AI was, the current crop of LLM's are amazing, mind blowing things. We start raving about them, so other people take a look expecting that modern LLM's are the greatest thing since sliced bread. They're not quite that, so we get HN comments complaining that AI sucks.
I think the problem is that they aren’t mind-blowing, but an improvement. I resent some LLM implementations on principle, but decided to give these code helpers a try. What I found was they’re reasonably bad, and I kept telling them the solution doesn’t work, only to be presented with a little tweak. So I don’t see the point of outsourcing my thinking, I’d rather remain intelligent and do the search/try/tweak on my o…
You seem to be doing what GP is pointing out.
GP's claim is that the relative improvement itself is mind-blowing, not that the tech is mind-blowing in an absolute sense.
I tend to agree: much of the detraction hangs on current-state rather than a probable potential-state informed by recent relative advancements.
In other words, many proponents are chuffed because of that potential; not because actuality. Likewise, skeptics are reserved because of the actuality, and not because of potential, for whatever reason (there are at least a few main ones, I think).