It's demotivating to think that:

- LLMs aren't good at producing original / novel work
- You still need experts to advance that stuff
- It will always be slower to move without using LLMs
- Once an innovation is done though, an innovation can always be scooped up by the LLM users
- "Bro why are you doing all this manually, I just vibe coded that in a weekend"

Will it always be this way? It's depressing in the meanwhile, at least.

In a sense, the decision is somewhat made for us in that we're developing next-generation stuff that LLMs don't know how to auto-code at @spritely. We are working on core infrastructure that needs to be carefully thought about and written. LLMs introduce a lot of errors and aren't good at doing this kind of work on their own.

And the goal was always that our work is there to be lifted from, to spread outward, the way people have long drawn from the well of the MIT / Stanford research labs in CS for decades, but for decentralized networking today

But doing it now, in this way, in this environment, it's just really depressing and demotivating.

@cwebber @spritely We need you guys.

The thing that scares me the most is that in 10 years time there'll be no new people able to code new stuff, to innovate.

And *that* is the main reason why we absolutely need you guys. Regardless of how demotivating it may seem right now.

@jorgecandeias @cwebber @spritely

It's not demotivation that comes first, but rather a simple survival of those who are out of money, out of funding for the choice of doing things that last and that bridges to the future.

@jorgecandeias @cwebber @spritely I think it's incredibly alarmist to suggest that people won't take an interest in learning programming even the old "untainted" way. We already had this kind of fear mongering even before LLM's but with high level programming languages and is untrue.