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.

Agreed. Whenever I hear about LLMs automating "boilerplate" I ask "Why didn't you abstract that away before LLMs existed?"

> It only gets worse the further away you get from the most popular idioms that have already been written.

This explains my experience. It gives me good info about what other people do but doesn’t help me solve unique problems.