[duendefm]

My point is, we have programming languages like C and C++, we have operating systems like Linux and FreeBSD, we have an empire of software and knowledge accumulated because of the intellectual battles fought by people before AI. With AI, we all are getting our coding easier (and are kind of being forced to), in a way that we will skip these kind of battles. That is, if we all use AI to make our job easier it will have some short term gain but we will end up as a whole ceasing to advance human knowledge with new stuff that has to come from real intellectual work. Like, I don't see people coming up with new outstanding technology if we all sucumb to be AI dependent.

[Daishiman]

I'm not really sure that I agree. The LLM paradigm basically allows for the same development techniques, for better or worse, but amplified.

So if you were lazily copying the first blog result in Google, getting the first answer from an LLM is equivalent, but the output is actually likely to be better.

If you wanted to do your research on various techniques and evaluate alternatives, LLMs can amplify your capacity to research and to have specific considerations for your specific problem.

LLMs aren't going to solve people's natural inclination towards laziness.

Additionally, while it's true that people may read and learn less about the "lower" levels of software plumbing, it enables enormous possibilities of higher level thinking that before were limited by the amount of manpower you needed.

For example, with LLMs I can try different test sharding strategies or trivially change from factories to fixtures in large test suites. This would have been busywork or drudgery; now I can evaluate several architectural solutions which would not have been possible before.