[rdevilla]

The point is the death of the celebration of excellence and technical mastery.

Once insurmountable challenges are now trivial to implement with, as you say, "low effort."

For those who were attracted to computing by the grind and the grand narrative that you, too, with sufficient effort, discipline, and merit, could become a revered craftsman, LLMs trivialize an entire lifetime of practice. I can't think of anything more demoralizing.

[ratorx]

If your goals were fame, then yes. But you can still pursue excellence even if there is an alternative “easy” path.

The equivalent is something like hand tool woodworking - it’s still a thing despite the advent of machines, but more of a niche. You can still aim to become excellent, but maybe you won’t be famous.

[CoastalCoder]

> but maybe you won’t be famous.

Or employable. Which sucks if you're over 50.

[estebarb]

That also sucks if you are not anywhere close to retire or having a beffy bank account and depend on regular monthly payments.

[_factor]

Did hammers obviate the technical mastery of finding a suitable rock? Or did they elevate the definition of “technical mastery”?

[risyachka]

llms are nothing like hammers or other tools.

They are factories that product goods on a whim. There is nothing to compare them to as we never had anything like that. This is not industrial revolution this is obliteration of work at its core.

[_factor]

I look at them as lab grown bacteria. We’re in the early days and still have a lot of contamination we still don’t understand. They don’t always produce a viable result, and sometimes they break test rigs.

Just because they’re not a pure extension of our bodies or minds like a hammer or pencil doesn’t mean they will magically break the concept of work.

[ninalanyon]

Would you apply the same reasoning to the building of horse drawn carriages and mass produced motor vehicles? A hand built PDP-11 to a Thinkpad?