> They'd hoard the tokens are use them to dominate SaaS software in any industry they want.

I don't understand this argument. I've ran and sold a semi-successful SaaS. The exhausting and frustrating parts are all the things an LLM cannot help you with. Coding the product is not the bottleneck or what grants you success.

Good point but I do think LLM helps with those frustrating parts while not being able to outright solve them.

> Coding the product is not the bottleneck or what grants you success.

Agree, and I think that's the core of my point.

Not that it's irrational or doesn't make sense to sell tokens for purposes of software dev, but that if tokens were a true game changer for success in software dev, they wouldn't be leading with token sales, the same way they're not leading with token sales for security stuff -- it's more like "Contact Sales".

It's just silly to claim it has zero correlation.

No serious user of DaVinci hates this.

Yes, but only because it is a translation. Easily the best use case for LLMs.

It seems exactly the opposite to me: Herbert didn't want robots etc in Dune, so he came up with a religious figleaf to justify this.

Herbert wrote other books about the dangers of god-like AI, so it wasn't just an "I don't want this."

Dune is very much about systems of power and oppression, the obvious and less obvious forms they take, and the way they transcend and direct individuals. Even when the individuals are almost omnipotent - in theory.

The whole point of Dune is that these systems are human, but have an independent life of their own.

The narrative is about modes of human supremacy, and a jihad against AI isn't just some optional world building, it fits the narrative perfectly.

Also reminds me of the shield technology and laser weapons. Making them go boom when put together is a way to get rid of them and ensure certain kind of setting. Even if the whole thing is just weird if think about physics.

That doesn't update documentation or comments referring to the function. I prefer search-and-replace.

Sure it does. IntelliJ will do that just fine.

Sounds like it doesn't catch everything and they recommend search-and-replace. From their docs: "For example, if you want to replace a variable name with a new name for a large project, use the Replace in path instead of the Rename refactoring since your variable can appear in the config files as well."

I think it's beyond decent. I don't understand how people are not more impressed by this. Just a few years ago the only expectation would be garbled nonsense.

Using words people understand is more important than this strange fixation on not anthropomorphizing things.

I think "honesty" is not a particularly good descriptor, independent of anthropomorphism. Previous commenters suggestion was much more understandable to me.

Being that can be understood is language. The previous commenter is making an particular argument for how we can improve this understanding. They didn't suggest we should use less familiar words, but different familiar words. Why is this strange?

To be clear, this is about anthropomorphizing large language models, not the general category of "things". Also, we should be evaluating these constructs using well-defined and measurable criteria; evaluating "honesty" fails to achieve both goals.

I think Honesty can be evaluated. Does the model push back when it knows the user is wrong? How often does the model hallucinate data vs. say it doesn't know? Provide a prompt with contradictions or other issues and see if the model corrects you.

Here is an article by Anthropic that explains what they do and mean in more detail: https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/honesty-elicitation/

Before AI people got the answer they needed from the snippets. That's the level most search queries are at.

> arguing that code quality doesn't matter, and quality produced by humans in the past was often terrible

You're conflating two different things. I'm one of the people arguing for the latter, but not because I don't think code quality matters but as a counter to to sudden idealization of handcrafted code.