[__loam]

C compilers are deterministic. You don't have to inspect the assembly they produce to know that it did the right thing.

[sanswork]

And C compilers have bugs too earlier ones a lot more though thankfully we are now several decades into their development.

[elicksaur]

Very whataboutism. Do you understanding why the person is making this argument? Or is everything just postmodern deconstructionism?

Everything has some imperfection, so LLMs are just fine... Completely missing the totally valid criticisms people have of the systems.

[Veserv]

I like to call that “unary thinking”. Nothing is “perfect”, therefore everything is “imperfect”, so everything is the “same”. One category for everything, unary.

[sanswork]

I'm not arguing LLMs currently generate great code. My argument is that it doesn't matter to the assertion that they make devs dumb.

Tools being bad currently doesn't matter just like compilers being bad in the past doesn't matter.

[sanswork]

You're trying too hard to argue here.

Every 5 years or so of my career something new has come out to make coding easier and every time a stack of people like yourself come out to argue it's making devs dumb or worse.

LLMs still generate terrible output a lot of the time but they are improving. Early compilers generated terrible ASM a lot of the time to the point that it was common to use inline assembly in your code or rewrite parts later. Tools can improve, the point is that neither make the dev worse they just add to productivity.

Writing code isn't my job it's a task I do to make the systems I design functional.

[lurking_swe]

critical thinking is hard i guess