No, the more appropriate analogy would be that LLMs (reasoning agents would be better term, as they are no longer just an LLMs) are new beings rather than new tools.

A new tool can be ultimately understood, and has a well-defined behaviour you can rely on. Then you can indeed become an expert in using a new tool.

But AI agent is more a new being (or person). It's not possible to understand them, as they are not meant to. Each of them has individuality, and can change tomorrow. There is no guarantee of a common behaviour.

So you could replace "tool" in your comment with "person" and you will see the flaw of your argument. No matter how many people you saw before, it's difficult to generalize the skillset (at least for humans there are some biological and cultural arguments why they can be generalized over). You can always meet someone different, who's, for whatever reason, not being helpful to you.

▲

9dev 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Most of the interaction surface with a coding agent is the harness anyway, so I'd definitely classify them as tools. Moreover, I don't like the anthropomorphism of calling them beings—and even if I were to follow that narrative, you can absolutely become better at interacting with people by practicing it.

Regardless, it sure seems like developers experienced with using coding agents achieve better results than those without, which pretty much refuses your entire point.

	▲	js8 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes you can learn the harness, that's a tool. But it's not the important part. I am not anthroporphizing them. I am just saying people are a better analogy. > seems like developers experienced with using coding agents achieve better results than those without That doesn't mean there is a skill involved. The same goes with people - you might just be naturally charismatic and get stuff done better with people. Doesn't mean it's a learnable skill that applies to everyone and every use case.