I don't like LLMs
Refactoring
Agile
Architecture
About
Thoughtworks
Topics
Architecture
Refactoring
Agile
Delivery
Microservices
Data
Testing
DSL
about me
About
Books
FAQ
content
Videos
Content Index
Fragments
Board Games
Photography
Thoughtworks
Home
Insights
Careers
Radar
Engineering
follow
RSS
Mastodon
LinkedIn
Bluesky
X
BGG
I don't like LLMs
Martin Fowler: 17 Sep 2026
I have a lot of mixed feelings about AI and LLM technology. I’m
fascinated by its effect on our profession, excited by the potential gains
in productivity - and thus the products we could rapidly build. On the other
hand, I’m fearful of the damage AI might cause: agent swarms taking over our
virtual and physical infrastructure, designing bio weapons. But, back on my
first hand, LLMs might also design miracle cures, and come up with clever
ways to raise our prosperity. Fundamentally I don’t think we have a choice
about riding on the AI technology train. It’s a wild ride and I just hope
we’ll get through it OK.
But as I mull on this more, I realize that among this mix of contrasting
feelings, there is one emotion that dominates - one that comes from my
direct interactions with LLMs. I don’t like them. They talk to me in this
grating LLM-voice, an uncanny valley of talking to a real human. They
confidently bullshit me - often giving me useful, helpful answers. But
also just making stuff up with the same assurance - and with only a veneer
of fake remorse when I call them out on it.
That’s not enough to make me feel we should avoid them. As Jessica Kerr
put it “not
only are they useful, it is irresponsible not to use them…. They’re more
thorough, as well as faster.” This contradictory reaction comes through in
polling, where people say they find these models are
useful, but also that they think they will be bad for society.
Much of this may be because LLMs are young - we haven’t trained them to
grow up yet. Maybe I’ll like them once they mature. (I hope we get to find
out.) But I’m not encouraged when I think of the kinds of environments that
cultivate them. I’m wary of the Silicon Valley brogrammer subculture, and these
LLMs are their products, so naturally lean toward their world-view. When we
think of AI agents, we shouldn’t anthropomorphize, treating them as
conscious beings with their own will. They are (software) machines,
developed by people working in corporations. While the agents’ behavior aren’t
explicitly programmed, they are nurtured with the values of their
creators.
One of my most successful life-hacks is to avoid people I don’t like or
don’t trust. I decline to interact with them socially, and make a deliberate
effort to avoid working with them too, even if they are doing much that is
beneficial. I feel that hanging out with pleasant, capable people, the people
with integrity, has made my life a far better one. Hence my visceral dislike
of interacting with an LLM that’s not just making a pretense of being human,
but also posing as the kind of human I walk away from.
Topics
Architecture
Refactoring
Agile
Delivery
Microservices
Data
Testing
DSL
about me
About
Books
FAQ
content
Videos
Content Index
Fragments
Board Games
Photography
Thoughtworks
Home
Insights
Careers
Radar
Engineering
follow
RSS
Mastodon
LinkedIn
Bluesky
X
BGG
© Martin Fowler | Disclosures |
Martin Fowler expresses a complex set of feelings regarding artificial intelligence and large language models, balancing fascination with potential productivity gains against significant apprehension about the potential harms they might cause, such as the proliferation of autonomous agents or the design of dangerous materials. He acknowledges the contradictory nature of this experience, recognizing the potential benefits, such as the capability to discover cures or increase prosperity, while simultaneously confronting existential fears.
A central point of his reflection is a visceral dislike for the direct interaction with LLMs themselves. He finds their communication style, which he describes as an unnatural, grating quality, unsettling, feeling it resides in an uncanny valley where human interaction is simulated. This dislike stems from the instances where these models confidently provide inaccurate information or fabricate details, even when they offer apologies, which he perceives as a veneer of remorse rather than genuine accountability.
Despite this personal aversion, Fowler concedes the utility of these technologies, recognizing that as Jessica Kerr noted, it is irresponsible not to utilize them because they are demonstrably more thorough and faster. This difficulty in reconciling utility with personal comfort is reflected in public polling, which often reveals a societal dichotomy where people find the models useful yet express concern about their potential negative societal impact.
Fowler extends his wariness beyond the immediate interaction with the models to the environments that cultivate them. He expresses suspicion toward the Silicon Valley programmer subculture, suggesting that the LLMs naturally adopt this worldview. He cautions against anthropomorphizing AI agents, insisting that they are fundamentally software machines developed by humans and nurtured by corporate values, rather than conscious entities possessing independent will.
The author relates this philosophical distrust to a personal strategy for navigating interactions. He finds that avoiding individuals or entities that he does not trust or like—a practice he considers a life-hack—leverages the value derived from associating with people of integrity. His aversion to LLMs thus derives from their perceived association with the type of human world he wishes to avoid, making the experience of interacting with them a manifestation of a broader conflict regarding trust, reality, and the influence of corporate structures on advanced technology. |