> But a big yes for still typing code by hand, and not leaving it to the llm. Except it has to be the code generated by your brain.

> That is what will create new neurons and new connections, which is what will keep away the cognitive decline.

100% agree with this.

The problem is, your employer doesn’t care whether your brain is creating new neurons and connections. They care about productivity and profit.

I feel like the folks that believe we can continue to write code by hand are either in denial that LLMs will eventually (if not already) outperform handwritten code, or are in denial that employers will be ok with lower levels of productivity.

If you have the luxury of working for an employer that either doesn’t care or is oblivious to this, then 100% continue writing code by hand.

Or if you do work on the side (whether for fun or for profit) and are ok with lower productivity, then yes, stick to handwritten code.

But just because handwriting code is better for your brain and cognitive development, doesn’t mean that the industry will be in support of it.

▲

coffeefirst 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Well there’s a lot of middle ground between “don’t use AI” and “generate everything, exclusively.”

When the bill for the latter lands with a heavy thud, moderation and common sense start to look like a pretty good idea.

	▲	jader201 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Well there’s a lot of middle ground between “don’t use AI” and “generate everything.” Sure, but again, this assumes both that handwriting code sometimes outperforms LLMs, and also that your employer agrees with this. I think it’s only a matter of time (again, if we’re not already there) before LLMs outperform handwritten code nearly all of the time. And, even if that’s not the case, I’m pretty convinced nearly all employers believe this is true, whether it is or not. So your employer only sees a “middle ground” as room for higher productivity.

▲

ToucanLoucan 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The problem is, your employer doesn’t care whether your brain is creating new neurons and connections. They care about productivity and profit.

Which is why businesses, tech and otherwise, are falling apart constantly unless they achieve gigafuck scale status, at which point they're unkillable no matter how much of this cancer infests their management.

I don't know how we arrived at a social norm where it's just completely fine that leadership in massive companies is just absolutely useless at their jobs, but the firms that last another hundred years are going to be the ones that figure out how to fire them all.

▲

ErroneousBosh 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> I feel like the folks that believe we can continue to write code by hand are either in denial that LLMs will eventually (if not already) outperform handwritten code, or are in denial that employers will be ok with lower levels of productivity.

Cooking a steak and then flushing it straight down the toilet outperforms all the slow and tedious business of eating and digesting it, too.

Why should I use an LLM to write code? It cannot do the job I want it to. It cannot type the code I've already written and it cannot generate correct code.

▲

jader201 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Cooking a steak and then flushing it straight down the toilet outperforms all the slow and tedious business of eating and digesting it, too.

That would be more equivalent to writing the code and immediately deleting it.

Except this code is being deployed, and it is still (mostly) functional, at least functional enough to satisfy your employer (their “hunger” in your analogy).

> Why should I use an LLM to write code? It cannot do the job I want it to.

Because your employer is convinced that it can do the job they want it to (whether it does the job you want it to do is irrelevant, unless you're the employer, in which case 100% handwrite your code).

	▲	ErroneousBosh 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Except this code is being deployed, and it is still (mostly) functional, at least functional enough to satisfy your employer (their “hunger” in your analogy). Bzzzt. Wrong. I don't give a fuck who's satisfied by my code. I only care about writing it. > Because your employer is convinced that it can do the job they want it to Bzzzt. Wrong. The code is incorrect because it is not precisely the code I would have written. LLMs are useless to me because they don't solve the problem of actually typing the code I've written into a computer.