back
1 comments
Tbf, author didn’t really read or write it, why anyone else should
I really love how people keep trotting out this straw man man that working with LLMs is just typing a prompt and then having LLM magically produce a working project. In practice, you obviously read the code to understand if it makes sense, and iterate on a solution just as you would when writing it by hand.

All you're doing here is exposing the fact that you have no clue how these tools actually work, or how to use them effectively.

It makes me wonder if these same people take issue with task delegation in software development: is it also problematic when a staff engineer delegates tasks across teams, or a senior engineer mentors a junior developer?

It's such a stifling, self-limiting belief that it's actually saddening :(.

It's also a hypocritical belief: the machine they used to type out these thoughts were assembled in a factory, using CNC, pick-and-place, laser engraving, plastic injection molding, etc. With the exception of a few things (ex: the silicon itself) all of these things could be hand crafted - it would just make the price of computer impractical. Commoditization is a good thing, and automation is necessary for that.

I can only imagine that what is actually happening is that these people are attached to the craft of software development, and AI represents a threat to that, just as CNC milling has displaced manual machinists. But then everyone would be better off if they found an appropriate place to vent that frustration (a therapist? a friend? like-minded forum dedicated to AI complaints?), rather than projecting onto (and leveling complaints at) people using AI.

If said staff engineer would then claim junior’s work as his own, then yes. But for an entirely different reason, as well as this whole analogy doesn’t work here.