zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
I’d love to see the authors of effusive praise of generative AI like this provide the proof of the unlimited powers of their tools in code. If GAI (or agents, or whatever comes next …) is so effective it should be quite simple to prove that by creating an AI only company and in short order producing huge amounts of serviceable code to do useful things. So far I’ve seen no sign of this, and the best use case seems to be generating text or artwork which fools humans into thinking it has coherent meaning as our minds love to fill gaps and spot patterns even where there are none. It’s also pretty good at reproducing things it has seen with variations - that can be useful.

So far in my experience watching small to medium sized companies try to use it for real work, it has been occasionally useful for exploring apis, odd bits of knowledge etc, but overall wasted more time than it has saved. I see very few signs of progress.

The time has come for llm users to put up or shut up - if it’s so great, stop telling us and show and use the code it generated on its own.

>>grey-a+ba
The author's central argument seems to be that the current state of LLM development is such that 1 Senior + LLM === 1 Senior + 4 juniors

With that as a metric, 1 Senior + 4 juniors cannot build the company with the scope you are describing.

A 50-eng company might have 1 CTO, 5 staff, 15 Seniors, and 29 juniors. So the proposition is you could cut the company in ~half but would still require the most-expensive aspects of running a company.

>>NotAnO+Ue
Even if you have one trillion juniors, you're not going to get them to spit out 1000 lines of code in a matter of seconds, after you give them an assignment, like LLMs do, so this is a faulty comparison.

Also often it takes a senior dev _more_ time to _explain_ to a junior what needs to be done than it takes to do it himself. What LLMs give us is the ability to generate a feature about as fast as we can type up the instructions we would have, pre-AI, given to a junior dev.