[noch]

> Thus, smacks more of no-true-scotsman than something I can chew on.

I wasn't making a judgement about you or your work, after all I don't know you. I was commenting within the context of an app that you described for which an LLM was useful, relative to the hard problems we'll need help with if we want to advance technology (that is, make computers do more powerful things and do them faster). I have no idea if you're a true Scotsman or not.

Regardless: over the coming years we'll find out who the true Scotsmen were, as they'll be hired to do the stuff LLMs can't.

[geerlingguy]

The challenging projects I've worked on are challenging not because slamming out code to meet requirements is hard (or takes long).

It's challenging because working to get a stable set of requirements requires a lot of communication with end users, stakeholders, etc. Then, predicting what they actually mean when implementing said requirements. Then, demoing the software and translating their non-technical understanding and comments back into new requirements (rinse and repeat).

If a tool can help program some of those requirements faster, as long as it meets security and functional standards, and is maintainable, it's not a big deal whether a junior dev is working with Stack Exchange or Claude, IMO. But I do want that dev to understand the code being committed, because otherwise security bugs and future maintenance headaches creep in.