I still think LLMs generate boilerplate and examples that should have been in the docs to begin with. We never really needed LLMs. We needed more active communities and maintainers to care about the "boring" parts.

All the rest of the generated code is usually slop. It only gets worse the further away you get from the most popular idioms that have already been written.

I don't think we're ever getting beyond that point with statistical "AI".

It's actually a pretty significant defeat for any open source tools that wanted to maintain control over what is considered canonically good. Maintainers are now forced to be a lot more defensive about what is possible with their tools. This limits their scope and kills curiosity and creativity.

We're lucky that all this happened after we found enough stability that people aren't too interested in creating new languages and frameworks from scratch like it was a decade ago.

> one thing is pretty clear: the act of familiarizing yourself with a language no longer matters and some of the friction that mattered for humans does not matter for agents.

sure, man, whatever.

Yet another HN item linking to a blog post by someone extolling the brave new world we are in due to LLM-generated code. Reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeNS1ZNHQs8