[59nadir]

Anyone who heavily uses LLMs for their work is pretty obviously ill-equipped for their work, and likely getting even worse at it with time, yes. You can throw around as many "things people from the US worship because they make money" positions/industries as you want. Nevermind that you're "pretty sure". People who both know what LLMs are actually capable of without major issues, plus are already capable enough to do their job don't need to use LLMs heavily, they'll use them for what little they're actually useful for. Only incompetent (or uninterested & incompetent) people lean on them very heavily.

Edit: To clarify what I mean by this:

Anyone who uses LLMs for larger-than-small-module code generation, pretend-not-vibecoding (a.k.a spec-driven development), or outright vibecoding, etc., is using an LLM "heavily", IMO.

The appropriate things to use them for is information retrieval, plus as a basic extra signal in debugging, code understanding, quality checks, and so on.

Also, it's not illegal to be incompetent. Most people were incompetent long before LLMs showed up, it's not some rarity.

[knollimar]

Is the majority of work not BS gruntwork?

My job has lots of low value stuff that must be done before I get high value tasks, so LLMs let me speed through to that point.

(I use LLMs to spam disposable scripts in a construction environment)

[59nadir]

If your "disposable scripts" require large-scale code generation, they're probably not "disposable" or "scripts".

[knollimar]

Nah I'm in the trivial camp. Just the quantity beats doing it by hand, but the APIs for drafting are a bit esoteric to learn.

[59nadir]

I suspect we agree more than our comments make it seem. There are code generation use cases that make sense for LLMs to do, I'm already with you on that, and I suspect that your situation is one of them.

[moomoo11]

bro go do your tickets lmfao