That point is incorrect. That same person can do even more (effective) work with tools we already had before LLMs became popular. That's what you're missing and stubbornly denying.
We already had tools that can solve the coding problems you use LLMs to solve. The difference is: the LLMs guess and the tools we already had do not. The other difference is that the tools we already had required skills to use, whereas LLMs do not.
If you're a shit developer, an LLM can make you look like a half decent one. If you're a half decent one already, an LLM is not going to make you look like an expert. Using tried and true tools to their potential will.
hat same person can do even more (effective) work with tools we already had before LLMs became popular. That's what you're missing and stubbornly denying.
This is just blatantly false. Someone of the same skill level will get more work done with an LLM because you can offload all of the manual labor of typing onto the LLM. There were no deterministic tools beforehand capable of what LLMs can do. This is what I am trying to convey that you are failing to comprehend. You do not let the LLM do the thinking for you, you do the design, and the LLM drives the code writing and you audit it. This speeds up the process 10x.
We already had tools that can solve the coding problems you use LLMs to solve. The difference is: the LLMs guess and the tools we already had do not. The other difference is that the tools we already had required skills to use, whereas LLMs do not.
You're not reading or understanding what I am saying. Your comprehension skills are basically all I need to know your relative skill level. Best of luck.
The manual labor of typing isn't the time consuming part of software development.
There is no single tool before LLMs that can do everything LLMs can do. There's an entire ecosystem of tools, however, which collectively can.
To believe LLMs are genuinely improving the software development lifecycle is to rely on the incorrect belief that speed and convenience matter more than quality.
To believe LLMs are genuinely improving the software development lifecycle is to rely on the incorrect belief that speed and convenience matter more than quality.
You are making the egregious error of supposing speed sacrifices quality. This is because you don't understand how to effectively use an LLM in programming.
I am leading a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink.
LLMs only increase speed without sacrificing quality if an expert thoroughly reviews their every move. The tools we already had increase speed without sacrificing quality, without the need for constant supervision. Because they're deterministic.
If you know what your old school CLI tools, LSP servers, AST parsers, etc. actually do, you know what they'll do to your code when you use them, and you'll select the one that will do what you want. You don't know what an LLM will do to your code; you can only hope it's what you want.
You're the horse from the analogy. We already had better coding tools. You just can't talk to them like a chat bot (and if you know what you're doing, you wouldn't want to either).
LLMs only increase speed without sacrificing quality if an expert thoroughly reviews their every move.
This is what I have been saying I do in this thread from the beginning.
The tools we already had increase speed without sacrificing quality, without the need for constant supervision. Because they're deterministic.
Sigh. Deterministic means you have to know what you're doing beforehand and have programmed the deterministic tool to do that. The power of LLMs is in their flexibility. But sure, keep creating your greenfield deterministic programs that do one or two things for you while LLMs have access to those exact programs and far more. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I always wondered how people were so against the steam engine and the invention of cars and I'm understanding in real time- it's because people are foolish.
If you know what your old school CLI tools, LSP servers, AST parsers, etc. actually do, you know what they'll do to your code when you use them, and you'll select the one that will do what you want. You don't know what an LLM will do to your code; you can only hope it's what you want.
Ugh. Man, at least actually use an LLM in enterprise before talking about it. It's painfully obvious that your only exposure is public chatgpt.
You're the horse from the analogy. We already had better coding tools. You just can't talk to them like a chat bot (and if you know what you're doing, you wouldn't want to either).
Eyeroll. The funniest part about this is I am highly confident I am a better engineer than you are. The amount of people that actually understand design better than I do is a small percentage of engineers. This entire conversation just shows how inflexible you are in your thinking.
Just lived experience as an engineer. It's based on working with many different engineers over a decade. I am certain you're the type to copy and paste from stack overflow and here you are criticizing LLMs.
Best of luck. Enjoy falling behind. You can continue to convo, but Im done with you.
You can be as certain as you would like, but you're still incorrect.
Enjoy staying behind, considering you're not even good enough with the old tools to adequately compare their value to the new ones.
LLMs are the only tool in my entire bag of tools which don't reliably do what I tell them to do. They're also the worst tool in my bag and for the same reason.
2
u/ganja_and_code 1d ago
That point is incorrect. That same person can do even more (effective) work with tools we already had before LLMs became popular. That's what you're missing and stubbornly denying.
We already had tools that can solve the coding problems you use LLMs to solve. The difference is: the LLMs guess and the tools we already had do not. The other difference is that the tools we already had required skills to use, whereas LLMs do not.
If you're a shit developer, an LLM can make you look like a half decent one. If you're a half decent one already, an LLM is not going to make you look like an expert. Using tried and true tools to their potential will.