I don’t get these arguments.

Just because LLM learned the entire internet does not mean it can’t 10x a developer.

Were all standing on shoulders of giants - LLM or no LLM. LLM gives you extra pair of ladders. That are wobbly for sure. But ladders still.

Using LLM invalidates nothing and the 10x stories are totally plausible.

The plagiarization argument is to me moot - most of us are plagiarizing previous work, weather we know it or not.

▲

MyOutfitIsVague 4 days ago | parent [-]

That wasn't the argument at all.

If I wrote a card game in 3 months, then cloned the repository and used that as a base to implement a different card game, it would be significantly faster with or without LLMs.

The argument is that it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. "I wrote a game in 3 months and then used an LLM in 3 days to fork it and make some changes" is not the same thing as "I spent 3 months doing something that I could do in 3 days with LLMs".

I believe LLM-driven development is powerful (though I hate seeing "10x" everywhere, and have hated it long before LLM coding was big, when it was talking about supposedly superhuman coders), but this is not a good comparison, and the argument is sound.

	▲	ModernMech 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly true. I've had the experience of implementing a programming language in two different languages. The first time it took half a year. The second time it was done in a month, because it was really only a matter of translating all of the code from one c-style imperative language to another, and swapping out the important library code and function calls. Maybe AI can take that process from a month down to 3 days, and that's great and all, a 10x improvement! But you don't go from 6 months to 3 days without doing the 6 months first.