[doyougnu]

I think this is exactly right. I've been thinking of "this time" as similar to the advent of digital spreadsheets. Spreadsheets existed for thousands of years but spreadsheet programs transformed spreadsheet work that took hours or weeks into seconds. You still had to know what you were doing, and if you knew what you were doing you were easily 10x faster than those that didn't.

I think we are in a similar situation with code generation now, then only difference in my mind is that LLMs come with a massive platform risk. Who's to say that one day anthropic decides my company is too much of a competitor to use their tool (like they've already done with openai) or what if they decide that instead of pulling their product from my use they just make it generate worse code, or even insert malicious payloads. A dependence on these tools is wildly more risky than dependency on a word processor or a spreadsheet program. It reminds me of the arguments around net neutrality and I cannot fathom how people building on top of, and with, these tools do not see the mountain of risks around them.

[hdgvhicv]

We have a generation of computer programmers who have known nothing but building on top of AWS. Vendor lockin at a career level. Most were building on top of Microsoft before that. Platform agnosticism and open source and specifically the ownership and control was mostly niche.

I don’t see that changing.

[naravara]

For now the code assistance mostly works within your existing IDE and dev tools. So as long as there is rough parity across the different model vendors I think it should actually be pretty straightforward to swap between them. In fact the few enterprise tools I’ve seen shipping now have a drop-down to pick which model you want to use per instance. You can pick Gemini to do one thing and Claude to do something else and Llama for a third thing if you want. They’re all outputting into conventional programming languages so they can all read and proof each others’ work.