> The thing is that even if I was wrong (I'm not) and AI was somehow helpful for software engineering (it isn't), I still wouldn't want to use it.
So even if you were wrong on the facts (you are) you still wouldn't change your mind? In other words, you're unreasonable and know you're unreasonable and think that's totally fine?
Not sure if the article was edited later, but there are five sentences after that one, expanding on the author's reasoning for their position.
> Next time, lead with that.
The post is titled "I Will Never Use AI to Code"... whether you agree or disagree with the author's position, he's certainly not burying the lede here.
I also can't help but notice the author isn't telling other people not to use AI, he's merely stating his own preferences and articulating his reasoning in depth. Why attack him for expressing his personal preferences in how he goes about his own work, which presumably does not affect you in any way?
> I actually like writing code. Why would I want to give up something I enjoy?
This line was good and lines up well with why I use minimal AI. But indeed the rest of the article shouldn't have really been needed then if this was the point.
> The thing is that even if I was wrong (I'm not) and AI was somehow helpful for software engineering (it isn't), I still wouldn't want to use it.
So even if you were wrong on the facts (you are) you still wouldn't change your mind? In other words, you're unreasonable and know you're unreasonable and think that's totally fine?
Well, cool. Next time, lead with that.