zlacker

What does that mean? Can you elaborate?

>>behnam+(OP)
Sorry, yes. LLMs write code that's then checked by human reviewers. Maybe it will be checked less in the future. But I'm not seeing fully-autonomous AI on the horizon.

At that point, the legibility and prevalence of humans who can read the code becomes almost more important than which language the machine "prefers."

>>JumpCr+g
Well, verification is easier than creation (i.e., P ≠ NP). I think humans who can quickly verify something works will be in more demand than those who know how to write it. Even better: Since LLMs aren't as creative as humans (in-distribution thinking), test-writers will be in more demand (out-of-distribution thinkers). Both of these mean that humans will still be needed, but for other reasons.

The future belongs to generalists!

>>behnam+22
> The future belongs to generalists!

Couldn't be more correct.

The experienced generalists with techniques of verification testing are the winners [0] in this.

But one thing you cannot do, is openly admit or to be found out to say something like: "I don't know a single line of Rust/Go/Typescript/$LANG code but I used an AI to do all of it" and the system breaks down and you can't fix it.

It would be quite difficult to take a SWE seriously that prides themselves in having zero understanding and experience of building production systems and runs the risk of losing the company time and money.

[0] >>46772520

>>behnam+22
P ≠ NP is NOT confirmed and my god I really do not want that to ever be confirmed

I really do want to live in the world where P = NP and we can trivially get P time algorithms for believed to be NP problems.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

>>rvz+Yb
I prefer my C compiler to write my asm for me from my C code but I can still (and sometimes have to!) read the asm it creates.