llmslave2

[flagged]

> while a different set of skills are improving (the skill of getting an LLM to produce functional output

Lmaooooo

Yep. I'd say it's an order of magnitude more effort to read code you haven't written too, compared to reading code you wrote. So there is approximately zero chance the people using AI to generate code are reading it at a level where they actually understand it, or else they would lose all of their supposed productivity gains.

I actually don't think they would agree with most of this. Why would you think that?

Good news: the evidence points to it being slower than non-ai workflows. So we're destroying our economy, society, and planet to make worse software, more slowly! :)

I thought the article was going to be about AI zealotry but it was just AI zealotry.

ensloppification

[flagged]

Anthropic developers run 10 Claude Code instances at once, with unlimited access to the best models.

[flagged]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to take "research" about Claude seriously from Anthropic, the company who makes and sells Claude. I'm also not going to do that for Copilot from Microsoft, the company who makes and sells Copilot.

But useful in the context of these debates isn't that it solves any single problem for someone. Nobody is arguing that LLM's have zero utility. So I don't really see what your point is?

Yeah this is the key point. Part of me wonders if it's just 0.1x devs somehow reaching 1.0x productivity...