[stavros]

You mention a thousand ways the analogy breaks when you take it too far, but you didn't address the actual (correct) point the analogy was making: Some people don't enjoy certain parts of the creative process, and let an LLM handle them. That's all.

[exceptione]

  > Some people don't enjoy certain parts of the creative process, 

Sure

  >  and let an LLM handle them. 

This is probably the disputed part. It is not a different way of development, and as such it should not be presented like that. In software, we can use ready-made components, choose between different strategies, build everything in a low-level language etc. The trade-offs coming with each choice is in principle knowable; the developer is still in control.

LLMs are nothing like that. Using a LLM is more akin to management of outsource software development. On the surface, it might look like you get ready-made components by outsourcing it to them, but there is no contract about any standard, so you have to check everything.

Now if people would present it like "I rather manage an outsourcing process than doing the creative thing" we would have no discussion. But hammers and nails aren't the right analogies.

[mlrtime]

>LLMs are nothing like that. Using a LLM is more akin to management of outsource software development.

You're going to have to tell us your definition of 'Using a LLM' because it is not akin to outsourcing (As I use it).

When I use clause, I tell it the architecture, the libraries, the data flows, everything. It just puts the code down which is the boring part and happens fast.

The time is spent mostly on testing, finding edge cases. The exact same thing if I wrote it all myself.

I don't see how this is hard for people to grasp?

[exceptione]

  > 'Using a LLM' because it is not akin to outsourcing (As I use it).

The things you do with an LLM are precisely what many other IT-firms do when outsourcing to India. Now you might say that this would be bonkers, but that is also why you hear so often that LLM's are the biggest threat to outsourcing instead of software development in general. The feedback cycle with an LLM is much faster.

  > I don't see how this is hard for people to grasp?

I think I understand you, and I think you have/had something else in mind when hearing the term outsourcing.

[stavros]

I don't think people use an LLM and say "I wrote some code", but they do say "I made a thing", which is true. Even if I use an LLM to make a library, and I decide the interfaces, abstractions, and algorithms, it was still me who did all that.

[jason_oster]

> Using a LLM is more akin to management of outsource software development.

This is a straw man argument. You have described one potential way to use an LLM and presented it as the only possible way. Even people who use LLMs will agree with you that your weak argument is easy to cut down.

[zwnow]

An analogy doesnt work if it has thousands of flaws.

[stavros]

You can't stretch it until it breaks and then say "see? It broke, it wasn't perfect". It works for the purpose it was made, and that's all it needed to work for.

[zwnow]

So the analogy is okay if it supports your argument but a counter analogy isn't okay if it doesn't support your argument, got it.

[stavros]

This 4D reading comprehension chess is too much for me, sorry.