The point is that the person I responded to criticized LLMs for making the exact sort of mistakes that professional programmers make all the time:

> I’ve found LLM code to be of poor quality. I think that has to do with being a very experienced and skilled programmer. What the LLM produce is at best the top answer in stack overflow-level skill. The top answers on stack overflow are typically not optimal solutions

Most professional developers are unable to produce code up to the standard of "the top answer in stack overflow" that the commenter was complaining about, with the additional twist that most developers' breadth of knowledge is going to be limited to a very narrow range of APIs/platforms/etc. whereas these LLMs are able to be comparable to decent programmers in just about any API/language/platform, all at once.

I've written code for thirty years and I wish I had the breadth and depth of knowledge of the free version of ChatGPT, even if I can outsmart it in narrow domains. It is already very decent and I haven't even tried more advanced models like o1-preview.

Is it perfect? No. But it is arguably better than most programmers in at least some aspects. Not every programmer out there is Fabrice Bellard.

But LLMs aren’t people. And people do more than just generate code.

The comparison is weird and dehumanizing.

I, personally, have never worked with someone who consistently puts out code that is as bad as LLM generated code either.

> Most professional developers are unable to produce code up to the standard of "the top answer in stack overflow"

How could you possibly know that?

All these types of arguments come from a belief that your fellow human is effectively useless.

It’s sad and weird.