[unshavedyak]

> Countless people in comments say this, but other people fail to see evidence of that in the wild. As has been said in response to this point many times in the past: Where's the open source renaissance that should be happening right now? Where are the actual, in-use dependencies and libraries that are being developed by AI?

The thing that this comment misses, imo, is that LLMs are not always enabling people who previously couldn't create value to create value. In fact i think they are likely to cause some people who created value previously to create even less value!

However that's not mutually exclusive with enabling others to create more value than they did previously. Is it a net gain for society? Currently I'd bet not, by a large margin. However is it a net gain for some individual users of LLMs? I suspect yes.

LLMs are a powerful tool for the right job, and as time goes on the "right job" keeps expanding to more territory. The problem is it's a tool that takes a keen eye to analyze and train on. It's not easy to use for reliable output. It's currently a multiplier for those willing to use it on the right jobs and with the right training (reviews, suspicion, etc).

[eitland]

> The thing that this comment misses, imo, is that LLMs are not always enabling people who previously couldn't create value to create value. In fact i think they are likely to cause some people who created value previously to create even less value!

Agree.

For some time I’ve compared AI to a nail gun:

It can make an experienced builder much quicker at certain jobs.

But for someone new to the trade, I’m not convinced it makes them faster at all. It might remove some of the drudgery, yes — but it also adds a very real chance of shooting oneself in the foot (or hand).