These are 4 arguments that have literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

* I don't care what "AI" is. There's a section in the post about this. Nobody needs to update their religious beliefs because of LLMs.

* I don't care about the economic futures of Nvidia or the frontier model companies. I'm not recommending you invest in their stock.

* The article opens with "all progress in LLMs could halt and this would still apply".

* The article doesn't care about "AI companies".

I'm a crypto skeptic and I do deny Bitcoin is a long-term thing, for what it's worth. I'm a hard skeptic of cryptofinance.

As I say, those are the arguments that I actually hear people make. And most of the arguments I'm hearing people make are from people who are using LLM tech on a daily basis (not the agent stuff so much, although it sounds promising). I remain surprised you're encountering so many people quite so skeptical.

The only real dispute about the usefulness of the current technology I hear is the concern that this will leave us without devs who understand the code at a deep level.

Maybe it would have been clearer without the dunktrope at the start of the comment.

Like you said, nobody reasonable is denying that something real is happening - the question is more about how useful, how soon, and for whom

Not all hype is just hot air.

Case in point: WWW and the “dot com” bubble. Dot com was a bubble, but the WWW (and Internet) was a big thing that transformed all major societies. It survived the bust that followed after the boom.

Are LLMs here to stay? We can guess, but as usual, time will tell.