datsci_est_2015 3 days ago

> In contrast, LLMs in their current state have (for me) dramatically reduced the distance between an idea and a working implementation, which has been legitimately transformative in my software dev life.

Feels like a false dichotomy.

Have I become faster with LLMs? Yes, maybe. Is it 10x or 1000x or 10,000x? Definitely not. I think actually in the past I would have leaned more on senior developers, books, stack overflow etc. but now I can be much more independent and proactive.

LLM-based tools are a wide spectrum, and to argue that the whole spectrum is worth exploring because one sliver of it has definite utility is a bit wonky. Kind of like saying $SHITCOIN is worth investing in because $BITCOIN mooned as a speculative asset:

  - I’m bullish on LLMs chat interfaces replacing StackOverflow and O’Reilly
  - I could not be more bearish on Agents automating software engineering

Feel like we’re back at Adobe Dreameaver release and everyone is claiming that web development jobs are dead.

▲ hungryhobbit 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>Feel like we’re back at Adobe Dreameaver release and everyone is claiming that web development jobs are dead

I truly believe so much of the anti-AI sentiment is the same as the Luddites.

They're often used as a meme now, but they were very real people, faced with a real and present risk to their livelihoods. They acted out of fear, but not just irrational fear.

AI is the same: it's unquestionably (to anyone evaluating it fairly) a huge boost to productivity ... and also, unquestionably, a threat to programmer jobs.

Maybe the OP is right about waiting, but to me whenever new tech is disrupting jobs, that seems like the best time to learn it. If you don't, it's not just FOMO as the author suggests ... it's failing to keep up on the skills that keep you employed.

▲ mekoka 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> it's failing to keep up on the skills that keep you employed.

I judge "failing to keep up" by my ability to "catch up". Right now if I search for paying courses on AI-assisted coding, I get a royal bunch for anything between 3$ to about 25$. These are distilled and converging observations by people who have had more time playing around with these toys than me. Most are less than 10 hours (usually 3 to 5). I also find countless free ones on YouTube popping up every week that can catch me up to a decent bouquet of current practices in an hour or two. They all also more or less need to be updated to relevancy after a few months (e.g. I've recently deleted my numerous bookmarks on MCP).

Don't get me wrong, LLM-assisted coding is disruptive, but when practice becomes obsolete after a few months it's not really what's keeping you employed. If after you've spent much time and effort to live near that edge, the gap that truly separates you from me in any meaningful way can be covered in a few hours to catch up, you're not really leaving me behind.

▲ whazor 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have found that maximising AI coding is a skill on its own. There is a lot of context switching. There is making sure agents are running in loops. Keeping the quality high is also important, as they often take shortcuts. And finally you need an somewhat of an architectural vision to ensure agents don’t just work in a single file.

This is all very tiring and difficult. You can be significantly better than other people at this skill.

	▲	datsci_est_2015 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is not an argument for its revolutionary utility. Balancing rocks on the beach is very tiring and difficult for some people, and you can be significantly better at it. Not really bringing anything to the immediate conversation with that insight.

▲ datsci_est_2015 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The burden of proof lies with he who makes grand claims. My counterargument in the face of your lack of evidence is: “Where are all the improvements to my daily life? Where are the disrupting geniuses who go-to market 100x faster than their Luddite counterparts?”

To paraphrase another analogy that I enjoyed, it’s a bit like when 3d printing became a thing and hype con artists claimed that no one would buy anything anymore, you could just 3d print it.

▲

therealdrag0 3 days ago | parent [-]

You don’t need 100x productivity to be disruptive. In business 10% gain can be quite enormous. My senior engineers are estimating 25-50% gains. That is a far cry from your 100,000% gain, but very real and meaningful.

	▲	tastyface 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The last study that came out on this showed that engineers were significantly overestimating their own productivity gains. If a stat like that is not accurately measured, it's useless.
	▲	datsci_est_2015 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is a completely different claim than the commenter made that I was responding to

▲ toraway 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

  AI is the same: it's unquestionably (to anyone evaluating it fairly) a huge boost to productivity .

And yet, the only research that tries to evaluate this in a controlled, scientific way does not actually show this. Critics then say those studies aren’t valid because of X, Y or Z but don’t provide anything stronger than anecdotes in rebuttal.

It’s ridiculous double standard and poisons any reasonable discussion to assert something is a fact and anyone who disagrees is a hysterical Luddite based on no actual evidence.

▲ JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Have I become faster with LLMs? Yes, maybe.

The question isn’t if you’ve improved. It’s if the path you took to getting to your current improvement could have been shortcut with the benefit of hindsight. Given the number of dead ends we’ve traversed, the answer almost certainly is yes.