Are you saying everyone who isn't barely starting their career is a genius? In the current state of things I'd gladly take mediocre work from a human over slop from an AI.
Seriously this. Doing code reviews on LLM created code is so frustrating. If the code was submitted by a junior engineer I could get on zoom with them and educate them, which would make them a better team mate, advance their career goals, and make the world slightly better. With AI created code the review process is a series of tiny struggles to dig up out of the hole the LLM created and get back to baseline code quality, and it'll probably be the same Sisyphean struggle with the next PR.
I had to review code that couldn't even do a straightforward map, filter, and reduce properly. But with management pushing hard for AI use, I feel powerless to push back against it.
Ha! Not just "the next PR", in my experience about 30% of the time you tell it "hey this slop you gave me is horribly broken because <reason>", and it says "you're absolutely right! I totally 100% understand the problem now, and I'll totally 100% fix that for you right now!", and then proceeds to deliver exactly the same broken slop it game me before.
It knows that the apologetic tone and acknowledging understanding of your critique is the most probable response for it to generate. But that’s very different from actually understanding how it should change the code.
Since that study demonstrated that experienced developers currently suffer a decline in their productivity when using LLMs, it's perfectly likely that less experienced/junior developers who normally will struggle with syntax or simple tasks like organizing their code are the ones experiencing the boost of productivity from LLMs.
Thus, it seems the devs benefitting the most from LLMs are the ones with the skill issue/more junior/early in their career.
How open are you to the possibility that it's the other way around? Because the study suggests that it's actually junior code monkeys that benefit from LLMs, and experienced software engineers don't instead get a decline of their productivity.
At least that's what the only available study so far shows.
That's corroborated with my experience mentoring juniors, the more they struggle with basic things like syntax or expressing their thoughts clearly in code, the more benefit they got from using LLM tools like Claude.
Once they go mid-level and above, the LLMs are a detriment to them. Do you currently get big benefit from LLMs? Maybe you are more early in your career?
I think you are making a couple of very good points getting bogged down in the wrong framework of discussion. Let me rephrase what I think you are saying:
Once you are very comfortable in a domain, it is detrimental to have to wrangle a junior dev with low IQ, way too much confidence but encyclopediac knowledge of everything instead of just doing it yourself.
The dichotomy of Junior vs. Senior is a bit misleading here, every junior is uncomfortable in the domain they are working in, but a Senior probably isn't comfortable in all domains. For example, many people with 10+ SE experience I know aren't very good with databases and data engineering, which is becoming an increasingly large part of the job. For someone who has worked 10+ years on Java Backends, now attempting to write Pythin data pipelines, Coding Agents might be a useful tool to gap that bridge.
The other thing is creation vs. critique. I often let my code, writing and planning be rewiewed by Claude or Gemini, because once I have created something, I know it very well, and I can very quickly go through 20 points of criticism/recommendations/tips and pick out the relevant ones. - And honestly, that has been super helpful. Using it that way around, Claude has caught a number of bugs, taught me some new tricks and made me aware of some interesting tech.
Those "experienced" actually are just senior code monkeys if u ask me, it's trivial right ? I don't assume the reason why, but it's just illogical for a junior to get benefits and the seniors don't. The wrong ones here is the "experienced".
I know how to use the AI tools for my purpose (that's why i use them), and of course, to make the impossible possible. Even if i failed to do so, it's not the decrease in productivity because without them, i don't think i can do better than the LLM.
> Those "experienced" actually are just senior code monkeys if u ask me, it's trivial right
Well, it seems you are not open for discussion. There is no reason to disparage the senior devs that participated in the study just because you don't like the results of the study. But the study happened, and it is clear: experienced developers are the ones that suffered from using LLMs.
> but it's just illogical for a junior to get benefits and the seniors don't
Experienced car drivers won't benefit from a youtube tutorial how to drive, junior car drivers might. That's similar to
junior developers being potentially the ones who can benefit from the basic things that an LLM can help you with, e.g helping you with syntax and structure your thoughts and write a scaffold to get you started. Those are concerns that experienced developers don't need help with, similarly how experienced drivers don't need youtube tutorials how to shift a gear. There is nothing illogical in that premise. Do you agree?
> i don't think i can do better than the LLM
I most certainly can tell you that there are 1000s of developers that can do infinitely better than any of the current LLMs, and those developers are fairly often senior. It seems like a skill issue you mentioned in the beginning of your post might actually be on your side.
The responses in this thread captures the absurdity of the AI hype so well that it's satirical, even. Putting all blame of AI deficiency on "bad prompting," denial of concrete evidence, and the refusal to provide one either is a recurring pattern in these discussions. The repeated angry name-calling towards experienced developers who failed to uphold your beliefs is the cherry on top.
I'd just like to point out just how sad, self-defeating, and ignorant this statement is.
I could literally teach a below-average-intelligence 16-year-old how to write better code than any LLM I've ever seen - if they're interested and willing to learn.
My understanding is that a code monkey just does what they're told. All the planning and behind the scenes negotiations that the senior devs and management do is completely opaque to them.