I expect these AI and LLM to be, basically, a middle of the bell-curve type producer of code. Just like their other output. Not terrible, not exceptional, just what a Mid could do - only faster.
Not sure what's being marketed, but I expect mediocre.
It does sound condescending. I think the sentiment is important though. Asking someone to be specific can help them think clearly. What’s a nicer way to do that?
I think "Who, specifically, claims that [...]?" comes off as less condescending than "Who claims that [...]? Be specific." just by virtue of the latter using imperative language, which triggers a reflexive "you're not the boss of me" reaction.
The message is clear in both cases. It's easier to put aside these irrational reflexive reactions and think about
whatever worth can be derived from the message than it is to carefully manage the emotions of varied readers whom you don't know. This is different from bring overtly inflammatory, although the lines for this are subjective.
Ultimately it's probably not a productive use of time to be commenting here at all from a strict EV perspective. Meaning that if you're posting here, you're probably getting something else out of it. The value of that "something else" determines how you should approach the problem of managing the gut reactions of your readers.
If someone asks for a better way to word something to reduce reader hostility to their point, I assume that they will be better off for knowing the answer to that question, and can decide for themselves whether they want to change their writing style or not - and, whether they do or do not, the effects of their writing will be more intentional.
In the two cases, the meaning of the message may be the same, but the tone of the message is different. One tone invites further engagement, the other invites disengagement.
