|
|
|
|
|
|
by sanderjd
904 days ago
|
|
|
I feel like it's a question of what "game changer" means. I find it incredibly useful! It helps me a lot in doing my job every day. I wouldn't personally say it has "changed the game" for me, but I think others might say that, just because the actions I take each day (my "game") is different now (has been "changed"). But the way those actions have changed just also isn't that big a deal. I have much better "intellisense" by using copilot, and I have much better stack overflow via interactive chat that will tell me answers immediately rather than linking to a kinda-sorta-the-same duplicate question after an hour. But using code completion and searching stack overflow weren't activities that took up much of my time. They took up some of my time, and it's really awesome that I'm using that time much more efficiently now, but it's still a small proportion. I still spend most of my time reading code and docs, talking to my colleagues about things, and thinking about how to structure interfaces and larger components in order for them to be more useful and to evolve more easily as we hire more people and adapt to different business initiatives. The AI assistants help me some with these tasks, sometimes I ask them to summarize stuff I'm reading, or (honestly hardly ever) to help me understand unfamiliar code, but these are quite small value adds. They aren't anywhere near the point where they can replace my work on these tasks. They just can't store enough context on the business or do enough different kinds of things or take enough initiative to do this part of my work. All of this is to say: I'm bullish on "LLMs as coding assistants" but - for the moment - remain bearish on "LLMs as replacement for a software engineer". |
|
|
I'm sure more evolved LLMs will begin to replace jobs soon, but it will mostly be the low hanging fruit. By the time it gets to what I'm doing we'll be in Wall-E floating chair [1] ubi territory.
[1] https://youtu.be/s-kdRdzxdZQ