If an LLM finds a bug, is that almost the same as an LLM writing code for you? You can write lazy code as a sketch, for example without thinking about nested loops in your head, and then just use an LLM that will fix this loop in the bug report? This can be viewed as a level of AI usage: 10% (for example), where vibe coding is 100%. I think any percentage of usage affects your personal mental sharpness. We know that if something gained somewhere, something lost somewhere. The only question is where the "loss" is, and how it will affect everything and everyone.

> We know that if something gained somewhere, something lost somewhere.

Yeah, but that doesn't imply equivalent exchange.

If you care about being the best sprinter in the world, yeah, put in the time and effort! But if you just want to get to work, there's no way you can beat the speed of a car.

If you're one of the better bug-hunters in the world, you probably lose something by using an LLM. For the rest of us, it's increasingly like trying to race a car.

We definitely need both types - it's important having the humans who do have that top 1% understanding. But increasingly, for everyone else, LLMs outperform doing it by hand.

I suppose that's the split between "writing code" the action and "writing code" the overall development process. I do agree there is some nuance in thoughts here often lost by the term getting overloaded.

> We know that if something gained somewhere, something lost somewhere.

I don't know that.