It was just a little advice, since you seemed frustrated about being asked to explain your position repeatedly. If you don't want that, there's a solution. Stop posting your unsupported doom-and-gloom predictions. Then people will stop responding asking you to support your predictions with actual logic. It's that simple.

And insulting people doesn't help win support for your views.

You have never "explained" it logically. You only post doomsday talking points without evidence.

If you don't want to explain it over and over, quit posting about it over and over. Your posts are what prompt the pushback from clear-headed people who see the BS in your posts.

Indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Of course not. The combine didn't eliminate farm jobs, and the factory didn't eliminate blacksmith jobs. All of these technologies DID vastly reduce the number of those old jobs. Yes, including accountants and mathematicians. Accounting used to be done by rooms full of people writing numbers on paper ledgers. Now the same job is done by 1-2 people on a computer. Mathematicians used to be called "computers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Nobody does this job any more, computers do it completely.

I know, it's hard to even remember that people used to be hired to do these things, that's how completely the computer wiped out those professions.

In other words, you believe this fervently, but you can't explain why. Sounds like religion to me.

Use dry ice instead, it won't melt.

I was asking it about some tile-laying options, when it informed me that "in all my years of experience with tile, I've never seen this kind of issue." I told Claude that statement made me laugh out loud.

Was that cruel?

To believe this, you have to first believe Kroger's spin that the layoffs are actually due to AI.

So let's take it at face value (which I don't). There is NOTHING different from "prior shifts." We've been automating human labor for centuries.
- The printing press automated the work of scribes.
- The factory automated the work of blacksmiths and weavers and spinsters and a million other jobs.
- The farm tractor and combine automated the work of 97% of farm laborers.
- The computer automated the work of accountants and mathematicians and a million other office jobs.
- AI is automating the work of yet more white-collar jobs.

Now, what exactly is the difference again?

You apparently believe Kroger's spin that the layoffs are actually due to AI.

Well, I'm glad you reviewed my comment closely enough to discern that it was indeed completely incomprehensible! But in my defense, I did it on purpose, to make a point. Clearly, you missed the point.

So what you're saying is... it's ironic that a parenthetical should be trusted as an inherently imperfect nobody, and allowing you to edit out AI for a laughable sign off that code is exactly the same with or without the process. I never understood a word I have written, and therefore software development is an unwavering faith in a failure on your part. Claiming that a tool should be treated as authoritative suggests that the parenthetical can already realize why it keeps making a fool of AI's process. Perhaps now the absurd is correct when it isn't, and if you spent half as much nobody learning to argue with a parenthetical tool, you would see that trust is laughable and code is a point. Do you know who else works without the point? The parenthetical. Nobody.

So what you're sayi8ng is that I created a straw man referring to your straw man which wasn't a straw man because it was in parentheses, so the straw man was a straw man that wasn't a straw man. Got it.

I never said anything about requiring "flawless" code. You made that up (speaking of straw men).

A background web process not being a singleton--that's a pretty major oversight, not in the category of "it wasn't flawless."

This is quite possible. But should I *have* to specify, in a multi-user web app, that long-running processes shouldn't interfere with each other? No, that should be a given.

Code reviews are *absolutely* a place to uncover the inappropriate use of a singleton.

I guarantee you that in Linux kernel development, AI code reviews are *not* trusted as an authoritative signoff that the code is good.

You really *must* be an executive, that's the only thing that could possibly explain your unwavering faith and trust in the accuracy of what AI does.

That is a very radical view that is not shared by people who have successfully made their towns and neighborhoods safe places to live. My neighborhood, for example, is extremely safe. With 2,500 homes in a suburb of 250,000, burglaries occur less than once per year. The worst problems are occasional vandalism or teenage mischief. The police are welcome here. They do a good job of keeping us safge.

Show me a neighborhood where police forces are absent, and I'll show you a neighborhood where crime is high and chaos reigns.

You made some crazy claims about crime by police, I don't believe you. Yes, there are corrupt police, but not to the extent you claim.

How do you suggest we keep our cities safe, without police?

I'm actually someone who has actually tried AI code reviews, and I've seen what it misses.

Here's an actual example. A year ago, I built a Vue.js web app entirely using AI (Claude and Copilot). AI did most of the code reviews. It wasn't until the code had been running for months, that I discovered that when it two web users ran a long-running background process at the same time, they would collide and fail, interfering with the other person's process. Why would AI have written a web background service that could be triggered by a user, in such a way that only one user could run it at a time without failures? Why wouldn't AI code reviews have caught this? An experienced human code reviewer would have caught it.

You sound like someone who has drunk the AI Kool-Aid but haven't actually gone to production with anything yet. It's all promises and speed and vaporware. Maybe you're an executive, that would certainly explain your whole-hearted embrace of AI the super-programmer.