[Doches]

> There exists a plethora of real world coding challenges that are beyond typical boilerplate code that ChatGPT has in my experience been able to produce entirely acceptable working solutions for.

I'm delighted to hear that! But that doesn't really counter my argument, which is that if a task can be done by an LLM it wasn't a good fit for a junior anyway. Being able to just fling basic tasks over the wall to GPT is great, and should free up time for non-junior devs -- but since those tasks wouldn't have helped grow the junior devs in the first place it doesn't really affect them or their trajectory. Unless you were just using them to churn through drudgework in the first place, in which case I guess great, you can just purge them from your org at no net loss since they'd have burned out soon enough anyway.

If anything I'd turn the thesis of your title on its head: should engineering leads be worried that AI will take away the last bits of code they should have still been writing?

(Betteridge's law, of course, still applies).

[Alan01252]

A master crafts person in any field can not become an expert without years of practice and repetition.

Should we therefore always just outsource tasks because the work could do be done faster? does that mean that the experience of doing something that could be done by someone else is less valuable?

ChatGPT could likely answer every leetcode question going? Does that mean there's zero value in a human attempting to answer these questions?

[Doches]

That's grandstanding and dodging my argument, which is that you shouldn't be giving LLM-suitable tasks to juniors anyway. They should get first pass at the interesting, complex work -- first in digestible bites, then with greater scope and independence as they become less junior. Is years of practice required to achieve non-junior skill? Sure, but years of copy-pasta-ing boilerplate (or otherwise writing gruntwork code that could be generated by GPT) won't count toward that time & experience.

Give your juniors real, interesting work and keep the GPT-level tasks away from them, and they'll actually improve.

> Does that mean there's zero value in a human attempting to answer these questions?

Your hiring process may vary, but mine sure says "yep, zero value in leetcode."

[Alan01252]

Are you saying that chatgpt wouldn't be able to achieve the digestible bites you're talking of? In which case, at what point do they become digestible? Is that not dependent on the skill of the person doing the digesting? and up to the engineering lead to determine?

I have never once stated that the work the juniors are doing isn't real or interesting, that's an assumption you've made, and I'm trying to state the contrary?