sarreph

> Some people say that the move from high level languages to AI-generated code is like the move from assembly to high level programming languages.

> I do not agree with this simile.

I spent a while believing that the transition to AI-based development was similar to the shift to lower → higher level programming languages. However, like the author I now believe that this is an apples to oranges comparison, albeit with a slightly different take.

Chiefly it's because working with an LLM is working with output that is stochastic by nature and involves a different kind of broader, systems kind of thinking. The LLM ultimately outputs a deterministic product: code. You can decide (as a junior or newcomer) if you want to understand the code, or not.

I don't think it will matter that much in the end -- in the general sense -- whether software developers take it upon themselves to understand code though. I think if you want to become a well-rounded craftsperson or a "true engineer", you are always doing yourself a service to understand inner workings and "how the sausage is made".

Plenty of roles today which are instrumental to software products do not rely on code understanding. Product managers, Product designers, Designers (in general).

Somebody who designs an object or appliance made by injection-moulding plastic doesn't need to understand how to create moulds or make a model using wood -- but it sure helps them, as a thinking person, understand their products and the world better.

On the other hand, another value of not getting to the point immediately is in order to build suspense. Like the author, it took me a while to realise how important suspense and build-up is in order to communicate memorably and persuasively.

I spent a large portion of my early twenties learning (through doing) about how important it is to "get to the point" by "keeping it simple", but it took me a great deal longer to understand how much more valuable it is to actually make a point by taking the listener on a bit of a mental journey first.

LLMs being used as a tool in general (and in the future) to automate creation and maintenance of software is not mutually exclusive to one person using LLMs to create an article.

I really like the premise of this article because I am intensely interested in learning about software factories. As much as "software factory" is a buzzword, it's still SOTA and it's absolutely going to happen / keep happening in the tech industry over the next few years.

However, I can't read this, not because I refuse to -- I want to -- but because my the cogs in my mind just stop whirring at all of the LLM-isms, my eyes glaze over, and I stop being able to follow what the article is trying to communicate to me. I would love for the OP to call me out and correct me (that they haven't used LLMs to write this).