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
The problem is of course that the besuited c-suite chimps making the decisions are incapable of judging the actual efficacy of these things; both because they desperately want their employees to be more replaceable and lower skilled, and because everything *they* do all day can be replaced by a pattern matching autocomplete machine and no-one could tell the difference
Tom Tuddenham@sinbad This. When considering all the inadequate decisions or poor communication that's come down from c-suiters over the years, it's easy to imagine an AI doing the same but much more efficiently.
Are they naive, or do they really don't think AIs are coming for their jobs?