zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
>If you were trying and failing to use an LLM for code 6 months ago †, you’re not doing what most serious LLM-assisted coders are doing.

Here’s the thing from the skeptic perspective: This statement keeps getting made on a rolling basis. 6 months ago if I wasn’t using the life-changing, newest LLM at the time, I was also doing it wrong and being a luddite.

It creates a never ending treadmill of boy-who-cried-LLM. Why should I believe anything outlined in the article is transformative now when all the same vague claims about productivity increases were being made about the LLMs from 6 months ago which we now all agree are bad?

I don’t really know what would actually unseat this epistemic prior at this point for me.

In six months, I predict the author will again think the LLM products of 6 month ago (now) were actually not very useful and didn’t live up to the hype.

>>davidc+K8
This isn't a particularly useful filter, because it applies to many very successful technologies as well. Early automobiles generated a lot of hype and excitement, but they were not very good (unreliable, loud, and dangerous, and generally still worse than horses). They got steadily better until eventually they hit an inflection point where the skeptics were dug in repeating the same increasingly old complaints, while Henry Ford was building the Model T.