Anyway, setting aside the ethical concerns, it seems perfectly clear that "setting aside the ethical concerns" is *precisely* the problem.

It is what got us in to this nightmare, and it is what is keeping us in this nightmare.

Please stop pretending that "setting aside the ethical concerns" is anything but a verbal signal indicating one's unwillingness to take personal responsibility for one's actions.

This six part series (link goes to the first part), written by a former core Azure engineer, is mind-boggling. Microsoft sounds like a dysfunctional company whose software is dangerously unreliable

(I mean, more so than it has been historically)

https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporized-a-trillion

So, AFICT the “reasonable” argument for LLM coding is if we persist through economic chaos and environmental crises while sacrificing the creative industries and education then models built using stolen data and license violations might safely revolutionise software dev productivity?

Public sentiment against “AI” is sour enough already. If you want to make software developers as a class as broadly disliked as tax auditors, this’d be the way to do it.

People keep assuring me that LLMs writing code is a revolution, that as long as we maintain sound engineering practices and tight code review they're actually extruding code fit for purpose in a fraction of the time it would take a human.

And every damned time, every damned time any of that code surfaces, like Anthropic's flagship offering just did, somehow it's exactly the pile of steaming technical debt and fifteen year old Stack Overflow snippets we were assured your careful oversight made sure it isn't.

Can someone please explain this to me? Is everyone but you simply prompting it wrong?

It's a good thing programmers aren't susceptible to hubris in any way, or this would have been so much worse.