[roblh]

I think they make good devs 2x more productive for the first month, which then slowly declines as that good dev spends less time actually writing and understanding and debugging code until it falls well below the 1x mark. It’s basically a high interest loan people take against their own skills. For some people that loan might be worth it. Maybe they’re trying to change their role in an organization and need the boost to start taking up new responsibilities they want to own. I think it’s temporary though. The slow shift into “skim mode”, where the authors just don’t quite put that same amount of effort into understanding what’s being churned out. I dunno, that’s just what I’ve seen.

[candiddevmike]

Because there's a mental overhead when you're not writing the code that is arguably worse than when you are writing the code. No one is talking about this enough IMO but that's why everyone is so exhausted when using LLMs and end up just pulling the slot machine until it works without actually reading it.

Reading code sucks, it always has. The flow state we all crave is when the code is in our working memory as an understood construct and we're just translating our mental model to a programming language. You don't get that with LLMs. It devolves into prorgamming minutae equivalent to "a little to the left" but with the added complexity that "left" is hundreds of lines of code.

[AstroBen]

I really feel this myself.

If I write home-grown organic code then I have no choice but to fully understand the problem. Using an LLM it's very easy to be lazy, at least in the short term

Where does that get me after 3 months? I end up working on a codebase I barely understand. My own skills have degraded. It just gets worse the longer you go

This is also coming from my experience in the best case scenario: I enjoy coding and am working on something I care about the quality of. Lots of people don't have even that