If it's a skill issue, what's the skill?

Like, this is a serious question. A skill isn't vibes, there has to be something that you can actually learn, complete with that connects that skill to output. Maybe the theory behind that skill isn't as rigorous as a scientific theory, but if it's entirely absent, if you have no way of knowing a real skill apart from vibes? Then yeah, you've just got vibes.

For all the bloviating from the boosters about how everyone needs to "learn how to use AI," I have yet to see a single coherent explanation of what it is we're supposed to learn.

Look, lots of folks love to compare AI to quantum computing, and I get it — the hype cycles are hyping. But you can learn how to do quantum computing! And we have actual mathematical theorems that prove that what you learn is correct!

I can, and do, critique the pedagogical *methods* often used in quantum computing, but that's quite aside from that there's something to engage in pedagogy about, which just isn't true for LLMs.

The closet you get is there being skills about how to build LLMs, but that's really not the same thing. There's actual theory there, math describing how to build LLMs, but none of that translates to whatever the entire fuck hell "prompt engineering" and "vibe coding" are.

Two things can be, and in fact are, both true:

• AI is unethical whether it works or not.
• AI doesn't work.