[oblio]

> Its not like there is zero benefit to it, but I am genuinely curious how you get consistently correct output for a "complicated subject matter like insurance".

Most likely by trying to get a promotion or bonus now and getting the hell out of Dodge before anyone notices those subtle landmines left behind :-)

[fn-mote]

Cynical, but maybe not wrong. We are plenty familiar with ignoring technical debt and letting it pile up. Dodgy LLM code seems like more of that.

Just like tech debt, there's a time for rushing. And if you're really getting good results from LLMs, that's fabulous.

I don't have a final position on LLM's but it has only been two days since I worked with a colleague who definitely had no idea how to proceed when they were off the "happy path" of LLM use, so I'm sure there are plenty of people getting left behind.

[0000000000100]

Wow the bad faith is quite strong here. As it turns out, small to mid sized insurance companies have some ridiculously poorly architected front ends.

Not everyone is the biggest cat in town with infinite money and expertise. I have no intention of leaving anytime soon, so I have confidence that the code that was generated by the AI (after confirming with our guy who is the insurance OG) is solid improvement over what was before.

[oblio]

The bad faith is super strong when it's being swamped by a lot more bad faith driven by greed. I'm not talking about you, but about all these companies with overnight valuations in the billions and their PR machines.

To your example, frankly, I would have started with that very important caveat, of an initial situation defined by very poor quality. It's a very valid angle as a lot of code that's available today is of very low quality and if AI can't take 1/10 or 2/10 and make it 5/10 or 6/10, yes, everyone benefits.