[crakhamster01]

I feel like both of these examples are insights that won't be relevant in a year.

I agree that CC becoming omniscient is science fiction, but the goal of these interfaces is to make LLM-based coding more accessible. Any strategies we adopt to mitigate bad outcomes are destined to become part of the platform, no?

I've been coding with LLMs for maybe 3 years now. Obviously a dev who's experienced with the tools will be more adept than one who's not, but if someone started using CC today, I don't think it would take them anywhere near that time to get to a similar level of competency.

[simonw]

I base part of my skepticism about that on the huge number of people who seem to be unable to get good results out of LLMs for code, and who appear to think that's a commentary on the quality of the LLMs themselves as opposed to their own abilities to use them.

[pavlus]

> huge number of people who seem to be unable to get good results out of LLMs for code

Could it be, they use other definition of "good"?

[svara]

I suspect that's neither a skill issue nor a technical issue.

Being "a person who can code" carries some prestige and signals intelligence. For some, it has become an important part of their identity.

The fact that this can now be said of a machine is a grave insult if you feel that way.

It's quite sad in a way, since the tech really makes your skills even more valuable.