The Seven Voyages Of SteveThe thing is, *even if* LLMs made me produce code 25% faster like they claim (and it doesn’t), it would still be a net negative even without all the costs (direct and indirect) simply because a human wouldn’t have the innate understanding of the code that comes with having written it, which short-circuits so much later. Most of coding time is NOT producing the initial version. We’ve known this for decades. It doesn’t matter how much people want that not to be true https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware-why-ai-coding
So many people desperately want this silver bullet to work but it just doesn’t, at least not to the extent it needs to, to even barely justify its negatives. Sure it’ll bash out boilerplate for you, and if you’re crap at something it’ll give you something plausible that similarly unskilled people will think is good enough. But no matter how much you squint, that isn’t worth the billions it cost you, or the environmental damage, or the mass automated theft. A reckoning is coming
Calicoday 
@sinbad Gen AI coding is like pair programming but not. PP can't work for everyone or in all situs but where it works, it can offer better understanding of the problem by 2 coders, each of whom has been already been articulating parts out loud (so the work is partially translated to human language for docs or whatever), less coder loneliness/drift (for those prone to it), 2 experienced pairs of eyes on it to avoid design traps. Ofc less successful if one of the 2 is delusional/psychotic.