Nowhere did they say it’s learning. They said they can do more stuff now, it’s exploration.

titularcomment 20 hours ago | parent [-]

The original article talks about 'savvy', which is to me an essence of learning. If 'exploration' is looking at walls of code you don't understand but the linter makes them look cool, you don't need LLMs for that.

	▲	Scubabear68 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Who said I was "looking at walls of code [I] don't understand"? Really, you are reading a lot into this without context. I've been working software development for close to 40 years now. I've worked in plenty of languages, software stacks, ecosystems, from assembler to VAXen to Unix (pre-dating Linux), to cloud stacks to...well, a lot of systems. The software ecosystem has ballooned so tremendously in that time frame that no human can really be an expert in all of them, or even in a tiny subset of all of them. As I mentioned in another comment, I couldn't be bothered to keep up with the Javascript/Typescript/Web front end drama. I don't do rollercoasters, and that ride is enough to make even the staunchest stomach heave with distress from the endless loop-de-loops. With LLMs, I can describe a little problem unique to my problem space, inspect the output, research it and even reverse engineer it, and see how well it fits (or doesn't). This is not unlike being a software engineering manager leading teams. When I said being able to see the results was "cool", I did not mean or imply it was about me trying to "look cool". In fact, I really don't know where that is coming from. I do this for my day job and also on the side for a lot of different causes and personal projects, and no one could give a rats ass about how "cool" I am. Seriously. People need to stop taking this all so personally. It's a tool. Maybe you all need to step back to my world in 1981 when I first started playing with code as a kid, and compare it to 2016. The advances from '81 to '16 are probably far more dramatic than what AI is doing now.