> Coding via prompt is simply a new form of coding.

No, it isn't. "Write me a parser for language X" is like pressing a button on a photocopier. The LLM steals content from open source creators.

Now the desperate capital starved VC companies can downvote this one too, but be aware that no one outside of this site believes the illusion any longer.

▲

bdangubic 4 hours ago | parent [-]

there isn’t a company in the united states of 50 or more people which doesn’t have daily/weekly/monthly “ai” meetings (I’ve been attending dozens this year, as recently as tuesday). comments like yours exist only on HN where selected group of people love talking about bubbles and illusions while the rest of us are getting sh*t done at pace we could not fathom just year or so ago…

▲

bgwalter 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I am sure that "AI" is great for generating new meetings and for creating documentation how valuable those meetings are. Also it is great at generating justifications for projects and how it speeds up those projects.

I am sure that the 360° performance reviews have never looked better.

Your experience is contradicted by the usually business friendly Economist:

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/11/26/i...

▲

bdangubic 3 hours ago | parent [-]

this is same as polling data when Trump is running - no one wants to admit they will vote for DJT much like no one wants to admit these days that “AI” is doing (lots of) their work :)

jokes aside I do trust economist’s heart is in the right place but misguided IMO. “the investors” (much like many here on HN) expected “AI” to be magic thing and are dealing with some disappointment that most of us are still employed. the next stage of “investor sentiment” just may be “shoot, not magic but productivity is through the roof”

▲

sarchertech 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>productivity is through the roof

Where are the hard numbers? Number of games on Steam, new GitHub projects, new products released, GDP growth—anything.

	▲	bdangubic 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		the numbers I could provide you are just what I have been involved with and we are 2.5/3.0x points-wise from 16 months ago. my team decided to actually measure productivity gains so we kept the estimation process the same (i.e. if we AI-automated something we still estimate as if we have to do it manually). we are about to stop this on Jan 1 since you referenced a trusted Economist here’s much-more-we-know-what-we-are-talking-about MIT saying 12% of workforce is replaceable by AI (I think this is too low) - https://iceberg.mit.edu/