Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @neatnik@social.lol
Michael Kohl 🇦🇹🇹🇭@citizen428@chaos.social (2026-08-21 15:17:56)
@neatnik I find his whole argument quite anti-human. Portraying HTML and CSS as something complex when so many of us learned it as kids on MySpace or similar sites in the past. And the idea that you’d need an LLM to fix things. Like humans aren’t capable of reading an error message and figuring it out. Trust in other people’s ability to work things out and let them experience the joy of creating something.
---Reply---
Olly@olly@indieweb.social (2026-08-21 17:45:34)
@citizen428 @neatnik harsh. what on earth is "anti human"? because I suggested using an LLM?
my take is that the vast majority of non-techies who face a problem with HTML/CSS/FTP/DNS (the things you will encounter when 'simply' putting a web page on the internet) will now use an LLM to solve it, wittingly or unwittingly. google is essentially an LLM now, and most people default to chatgpt. you might avoid it, but most humans don't. that's the reality i'm afraid.
Reply
---Replies---
Paweł Świątkowski@katafrakt@ruby.social (2026-08-21 18:22:18)
@olly the take was the you'll need to **pay** for LLM assistance. This does not happen for unconscious use of LLM while searching Google or using free ChatGPT account (which, I believe, most people do). No wonder that there was an association: paid LLM = agentic coding.
Also I believe Michael's argument was that if an ambitious kid can learn HTML and CSS, pretty much any person can, techie or not.
@citizen428 @neatnik