No matter how good or fast you are, you will never beat the LLM. What you're saying is akin to "your math is faster than a calculator" and I'm willing to bet it's not. LLMs are not perfect and will require intervention and fixing but if it can get you 90% there, that's pretty good. In the coming years, you'll soon find your peers are performing much faster than you (assuming you program for a living) and you will have no choice but you do you.

Fun story: when I interned at Jane Street, they gave out worksheets full of put-call parity calculations to do in your head because, when you're trading, being able to do that sort of calculation at a glance is far faster and more fluid than using a calculator or computer.

So for some professionals, mental math really is faster.

Make of that what you will.

Beat an LLM at what? Lines of code per minute? Certainly not. But that's not my job. If anything I try to minimise the amount of code I output. On a good day my line count will be negative.

Mathematicians are not calculators. Programmers are not typists.

LLMs do not work the same way calculators do, not even close.

So now programmers add value when they write more code faster? Curious how this was anathema but now is a clear evidence of LLM-driven coding superiority.

The math that isn't mathing is even more basic tho. This is a Concorde situation all over again. Yes, supersonic passenger jets would be amazing. And they did reach production. But the economics were not there.

Yeah, using GPU farms delivers some conveniences that are real. But after 1.6 trillion dollars it's not clear at all that they are a net gain.