> Maybe you are not that great at using the most current LLMs or you don't want to be?

I’m tired of this argument. I’ll even grant you: both sides of it.

It seems as though we prepared our selves to respond to llms in this manner with people memeing, or simply recognizing, that there was a “way” to ask questions to get better results early on when ranked search broadened the appeal of search engines.

The reality is that both you and the op are talking about the opinion of the thing, but leaving out the thing itself.

You could say “git gud”, but what if you showed op what “gud” output to you was, and they recognized it as the same sort of output that they were saying was repetitive?

It’s ambiguity based on opinion.

I fear so many are taking part each other.

Perhaps linking to example prompts and outputs that can be directly discussed is the only way to give specificity to the ambiguous language.

> Students are given a “prompt” for writing

Students were always given a “prompt” for writing.

That’s why tech companies used that term; rather than the other way around.

> I'd rather write a new Device Mapper target than do either of those things

Perhaps it’s time for a career change then. Follow your joy and it will come more naturally for you to want to spread it.

Again,

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

From my reading the “strongest possible interpretation” of the original “CRUD app” line was “it’s a solved problem that largely requires rtfm and rote execution of well worn patterns in code structure” making it similarly situated as “server telemetry” to make llms appear superintelligent to people new to programming within those paradigms.

I’m unfamiliar with “device mapping”, so perhaps someone else can confirm if it is “the crud app of Linux kernel dev” in that vein.

Just listing topics in software development is hardly evidence of either your own ability to work on them, or of their inherent complexity.

Since this seems to have hurt your feelings, perhaps a more effective way to communicate your needs would be to explain why you find “server telemetry” to be more difficult/complex/w/e to warrant needing an llm for you to be able to do it.

I’d rather write server telemetry logic than any customer facing ui app, and it sounds like you would too.

This seems a self servingly literal interpretation of the op’s original comment.

Clearly something like “server telemetry” is the datacenter’s “CRUD app” analogue.

It’s a solved problem that largely requires rtfm and rote execution of well worn patterns in code structure.

Please stick to the comment guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html