[mapontosevenths]

The thing you're likely missing is that you've forgotten what programming is at a high level.

A program is a series of instructions that tell a computer how to perform a task. The specifics of the language aren't as important as the ability to use them to get the machine to perform the tasks instructed.

We can now use English as that language, which allows more people than ever to program. English isn't as expressive as Python wielded by an expert, yet. It will be. This is bad for people who used to leverage the difficulty of the task to their own advantage, but good for everyone else.

Also, keep in mind that todays LLM's are the worst they'll ever be. They will continue to improve, and you will stagnate if you don't learn to use the new tools effectively.

[dustbunny]

> you will stagnate if you don't learn to use the new tools effectively

I've been going the other way, learning the old tools, the old algorithms. Specifically teaching myself graphics and mastering the C language. Tons of new grads know how to use Unity, how many know how to throw triangles directly onto the GPU at the theoretical limit of performance? Not many!

[mapontosevenths]

I did some of that when I was younger. I started with assembly and C, even though everyone told me to skip it and start with at least C++ or something further up the abstraction ladder. Ignoring them and gaining that knowledge has proven invaluable over the years.

Understanding a "deeper" abstraction layer is almost always to your advantage, even if you seldom use it in your career. It just gives you a glimpse behind the curtain.

That said, you have to also learn the new tools unless you tend to be a one man band. You'll find that employers don't want esoteric knowledge or all-knowing wizards who can see the matrix. Mostly, they just want a team member who can cooperate with other folks to get things done in whatever tool they can find enough skilled folks to use.

[jennyholzer3]

I think this guy is smarter than every LLM user in the thread

[coffeefirst]

> you will stagnate if you don't learn to use the new tools effectively.

This is the first technology in my career where the promoters feel the need to threaten everyone who expresses any sort of criticism, skepticism, or experience to the contrary.

It is very odd. I do not care for it.

[mapontosevenths]

How old is your career then? I've been hearing some variation on "evolve or die" for about 30 years now, and it's been true every time... Except for COBOL. Some of those guys are still doing the same thing they were back then. Literally everything else has changed and the people that didn't keep up are gone.

[jennyholzer3]

"you will stagnate if you don't learn to use the new tools effectively."

this hostile marketing scheme is the reason for my hostile opposition to LLMs and LLM idiots.

LLMs do not make you smarter or a more effective developer.

You are a sucker if you buy into the hype.

[mapontosevenths]

Are you arguing that you can work in technology without learning new things?

Have you considered a career in plumbing? Their technology moves at a much slower rate and does not require you to learn new things.

[coffeefirst]

No... nobody has ever argued that.

There's a debate to be had about what any given new technology is good for and how to use it because they all market themselves as the best thing since sliced bread. Fine. I use Sonnet all the time as a research tool, it's kind of great. I've also tried lots of stuff that doesn't work.

But the attitude towards everyone who isn't an AI MAXIMALIST does not persuade anyone or contribute to this debate in any useful way.

Anyway if I get kicked out of the industry for being a heretic I think I'll go open an Italian restaurant. That could be fun.

[mapontosevenths]

> There's a debate to be had about what any given new technology is good for and how to use it

Fair enough. It's reasonable to debate it, and I'll agree that it's almost certainly overhyped at the moment.

That said, folks like the GP who say that "LLMs do not make you smarter or a more effective developer" are just plain wrong. They've either never used a decent one, or have never learned to use one effectively and they're blaming the tool instead of learning.

I know people with ZERO programming experience who have produced working code that they use every day. They literally went from 0% effective to 100% effective. Arguing that it didn't happen for them (and the thousands of others just like them) is just factually incorrect. It's not even debatable to anyone who is being honest with themselves.

It's fair to say that if you're already a senior dev it doesn't make you super-dev™, but I doubt anyone is claiming that. For "real devs" they're claiming relatively modest improvements, and those are very real.

> Anyway if I get kicked out of the industry for being a heretic I think I'll go open an Italian restaurant.

I doubt anyone will kick you out for having a differing opinion. They'll more likely kick you out for being less productive than the folks who learned to use the new tools effectively.

Either way, the world can always use another Italian restaurant, or another plumber. :)

[jennyholzer3]

I'm arguing that LLMs are overhyped garbage which frankly seem like a dead end for someone pursuing a career in software development