[saithound]

Since developers working a tplaces like Parkes Observatory use LLMs regularly, it seems like experience ("13-year-olds" versus "senior engineers" at the two extremes) doesn't explain this gap as well as you imply.

The other hypotheses in this thread (e.g. that it's largely a matter of programming language) seem much more plausible.

[tensorturtle]

When it comes to full on vibe coding (Claude Code with accept all edits), my criteria is whether I will be held responsible for the complexity introduced by the code. When I've been commissioned to write backend APIs, "the buck stops with me" and I will have to be able to personally explain potentially any architectural decision to technical people. On the other hand, for a "demo-only" NextJS web app that I was hired to do for non-technical people (meaning they won't ever look at the code), I can fully vibe code it. I don't even want to know what the complexity and decisions AI has made for me but as far as I am concerned this will be a secret forever.

[ost-ing]

Everyone can use these tools to deepen knowledge and enhance output.

But, there is a difference between using LLMs and relying on LLMs. The hype is geared toward this idea that we can rely on these tools to do all the work for us, we can fire everyone, but its bollocks.

It becomes an increasingly ridiculous proposition as the work becomes more specialized indepth, cross functional, regulated and critical.

You can use it to help at any level of complexity, but nobody is going to vibe code a flight control system.

[saithound]

FWIW I fully agree.