Feyd

Before the internet my mother wrote down things I asked about and we looked them up at the library on the weekend.

1. I rotate when I sleep so if the sheets etc aren't tucked in I'll rotate them off the bed then wake up cold.
2. I have dogs and having the comforter covering the entire bed keeps the parts I touch clean and comfortable

Huh? I'm definitely not hyping AI. If anything it would be the opposite. We're also literally in the comment section for an a study about AI productivity which is the first remotely reputable study I've even seen. The rest have been rigged marketing stunts. As far as judging my opinion about the productivity of AI against junior developers against studies, why don't you bring me one that isn't "we made an artificial test then directly trained our LLM on the questions so it will look good for investors"? I'll wait.

Sounds like privilege to me. For instance I think blahaj is entirely correct to aggressively enforce a space where people aren't allowed to argue their userbase shouldn't be allowed to exist.

But when a mid-tier or entry level dev can do 60% of what a senior can do

This simply isn't how software development skill levels work. You can't give a tool to a new dev and have them do things experienced devs can do that new devs can't. You can maybe get faster low tier output (though low tier output demands more review work from experienced devs so the utility of that is questionable). I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the topic you're making these bold claims about.

You're absolutely correct that the angle approach that statement is bullshit. There is also that they want to think making software is not highly complex creative work but somehow is just working an assembly line and the software devs are gatekeepers that don't deserve respect.

LLM-assisted entry-level developers merely need to be half as good as expert human unassisted developers

1. This isn't even close to existing.
2. The theoretical cyborg-developer at that skill level would surely be introducing horrible security bugs or brittle features that don't stand up to change
3. Sadly i think this is exactly what many CEOs are thinking is going to happen because they've been sold on openai and anthropic lies that it's just around the corner

You’re acting like this is a gotcha when it’s actually probably the most rigorous study of AI tool productivity change to date.

You're acting like this is a gotcha when it's actually probably the most rigorous study of AI tool productivity change to date.

That said, this year’s crop of interns at work seem to be thin wrappers on top of LLMs and I worry about the future of critical thinking for society at large.

This is the must frustrating problem I have. With a few exceptions, LLM use seems to be inversely proportional to skill level, and having someone tell me "chatgpt said ___" when asking me for help because clearly chatgpt is not doing it for their problem makes me want to just hang up.

I would say that "replacing with AI assistance" is probably not what is actually happening. Is it economic factors reducing hiring. This isn't the first time it has happened and it won't be the last. The AI boosters are just claiming responsibility for marketing purposes.

I thought it was the bread line they wanted to go up