zlacker

Maybe it's convenient. But isn't it also just a fact that some of the models available today are better than the ones available five months ago?

>>pdabba+(OP)
sure, but after having spent some time trying to get anything useful - programmatically - out of previous models and not getting anything once a new one is announced how much time should one spend.

Sure you may end up missing out on a good thing and then having to come late to the party, but coming early to the party too many times and the beer is watered down and the food has grubs is apt to make you cynical the next time a party announcement comes your way.

>>pdabba+(OP)
That's not the issue. Their complaint is that proponents keep revising what ought to be fixed goalposts... Well, fixed unless you believe unassisted human developers are also getting dramatically better at their jobs every year.

Like the boy who cried wolf, it'll eventually be true with enough time... But we should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.

_____

Jan 2025: "Ignore last month's models, they aren't good enough to show a marked increase in human productivity, test with this month's models and the benefits are obvious."

Feb 2025: "Ignore last month's models, they aren't good enough to show a marked increase in human productivity, test with this month's models and the benefits are obvious."

Mar 2025: "Ignore last month's models, they aren't good enough to show a marked increase in human productivity, test with this month's models and the benefits are obvious."

Apr 2025: [Ad nauseam, you get the idea]

>>bryanr+K1
Plus it's not even possible to miss the metaphorical party: If it gets going, it will be quite obvious long before it peaks.

(Unless one believes the most grandiose prophecies of a technological-singularity apocalypse, that is.)

>>Terr_+X2
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I've always thought that the more reasonable claim is that AI tools make poor-average developers more productive, not necessarily expert developers.

>>pdabba+Ka
Personally I don't want poor-average developers to be more productive, I want them to be more expert

>>bluefi+Fs
"Compared to last quarter, we've shipped 40% more spaghetti-code!"

>>bluefi+Fs
Sure. But what would you suppose the ratio is between expert, average, and mediocre coders in the average organization? I think a small minority would be in the first category, and I don’t see a technology on the horizon that will change that except for LLMs, which seem like they could make mediocre coders both more productive and produce higher quality output.

>>pdabba+SI
They definitely aren't producing higher quality output imo, but definitely producing low quality output faster

That's not a tradeoff that I like

>>bluefi+ZX
That's the study I'm really interested in: does AI use improve the output of lower-skill developers (not experts). My intuitions point me in the opposite direction. I think AI would improve their work. But I'm not aware of any hard data that would help answer this question.