I think its worse than that.

I admit that if a small team or an individual uses an LLM, it's likely they can create value faster.

I think as soon as you don't own the responsibility for the defects you generate with an LLM, their use starts to destroy value. Regardless of product maturity.

This is what I think the data says.

https://unessays.substack.com/p/talk-is-cheap

▲

nyeah 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah this part scares me a little. I imagine it scares everyone who is more than a couple of years out of school. I hear that "the solution to LLM tech debt is more LLM." That might be true, but it might not be.

	▲	oudlys 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It scares me too. I actually think this is precisely the reason LLMs can't be the basis for a technological revolution. Because it's only one way. Like, if you have a compiler, and it has a bug. You can discover if that bug is influencing your code execution and patch it. You can go both up and down the stack. With LLMs, there is no way to patch it's translation function. You have to rely on it to forward process. I don't think there is any way to avoid us understanding our tech stacks.

▲

d33d 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're not really getting it.

If you are producing something that delivers a far better experience, irrespective of what's under the hood (see Claude Code et al), you will decimate an incumbent who is trying to use LLMs in the context of incrementally improving a mature product.

LLMs are suited for the development of revolutionary innovation, not incremental.

	▲	oudlys 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think we mostly agree. I think I just disagree about the power of the LLM to deliver revolutionary innovation. That's something you do. Not the machine. And, pretty soon on your journey to scale, the LLM becomes a hinderance rather than a help.