All of those studies have been torn apart in detail, often right here on HN.

> So while it may be a fun toy for senior devs that know what to look for, it actually makes them slower and stupider, making them progressively less capable to do their job and apply critical thinking skills.

I've been able to tackle problems that I literally would not have been able to undertake w/o LLMs. LLMs are great at wading through SO posts and GH issue threads and figuring out what magic set of incantations makes some stupid library actually function. They are really good at writing mock classes way faster than I ever have been able to. There is a cost/benefit analysis for undertaking new projects, and if "minor win" involves days of wading through garbage, odds are the work isn't going to happen. But with LLMs I can outsource the drudgery part of the job (throwing crap tons of different parameters at a poorly documented function and seeing what happens), and actually do the part that is valuable (designing software).

You still have to guide the design! Anyone letting LLMs design software is going to fail hard, LLMs still write some wacky stuff. And they are going to destroy juniors, I don't know what the future of the field is going to be like (not pretty that is for sure...)

But I just had an LLM write me a script in ~2 minutes (me describing the problem) that would've taken me 30-60 minutes to write and debug. There would have been no "learning" going on writing a DOS batch script (something I have to do once very 2 or 3 years, so I forget everything I know each time).

The AI in OSS study was not “torn apart”.

The AI aficionados made scary faces at it, tried to scratch it with their cute little claws and then gave up and stopped talking about it. :)

> All of those studies have been torn apart in detail, often right here on HN.

You mean the same Hacker News where everyone was suddenly an expert in epidemiology a few years ago and now can speak with authority to geopolitics?