And really, it goes against the spirit of HN to hyperfocus on idioms instead of addressing the meat of the argument...
As a personal observation, if an LLM was figuratively looking over my shoulder and pointed out something like "well, ackshually, 'a few bad apples' means..." I would delete the fucker.
And more relevant to us, a couple bad lines of code sprinkled in the millions in your code base can ruin the entire thing....
Would you prefer to be corrected on some logical fallacy/mistake you made in your argument, by another human being (and yes, maybe get slightly upset about it, we're human beings after all), or have both sides present bot-mediated iron-clad comments, like operators sparring with robots?
I prefer the raw, flawed human version. Even if, yes, I make a silly, avoidable mistake, or get upset, or make you upset in the heat of the argument. Maybe when I cool down I will have learned something.
I don't want flawless robotic arguments. I want human beings. (Fuck, that last bit sounded like an AI-ism, but I promise it's me, a human!).
