[gdulli]

It's also possible to put in enough hours of real coding to get to the point where coding really isn't that hard anymore, at least not hard enough to justify switching from those stable/solid fundamental skills to a constantly revolving ecosystem of ephemeral tools, models, model versions, best practices, lessons from trial and error, etc. Then you could bypass all of this distraction.

Admittedly that stance is easiest to take if you were old enough, experienced enough already by the time this era hit.

[paweladamczuk]

"There exist developers whose performance cannot be boosted by an LLM" is a really strong statement.

[gdulli]

The point is that it takes significant time and attention to keep up with the treadmill of constantly learning the new tool/model/framework of the month, so there's significant opportunity cost. I have continued putting 100% of my attention on the direct problems I'm solving.

I don't see the coding as the hard or critical part of my work, so I don't put effort into accelerating or delegating that part.

[_se]

Not really. It's on the people asserting the positive (that LLMs do improve productivity for sufficiently experienced engineers) to prove it. In the absence of proof, the null hypothesis is the default.