[clktmr]

I feel this becomes more and more relevant again:

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/E...

Edit: To add on this, I think there is a lot of software that is written in a throwaway fashion (CRUD apps, shell scripts), where using LLMs might beneficial. But anything where correctness actually matters, why would I describe it in natural language only to then check the implementation?

The much more sensible use of LLMs to me is the other way round: creating ad hoc documentation for code that you can even ask questions. But that's probably not fundable by VCs on the same level.

[HenryBemis]

Yes and no (imho). Whether it's some uber technical language/low level, such as Assembly or Swift, an LLM would have no problem 'learning it'. It could take more or less time, but moving bits around and drawing lines is something that a machine can do faster than a human - once the machine learns. I was coding in MQL4. It would take me a couple of hours to make something that an LLM would type up in 30secs with 5mins spent on description/reqs.

And it may make 1000 mistakes before getting it right, but if these 1000 iterations happen in 1ms it is still more profitable than a human needing 10 iterations. And considering that once you teach a machine (ML) the machine will know - forever, while you need to spend dedicated time for each new human that becomes a dev.

> ..sharp decline of people's mastery of their own language

This is the part that scares me about humanity. Perhaps I read a lot, and perhaps I am a believer that words matter. People seem to be replacing everything, dummy-ing down things, racing to the bottom of intellect.

On the original post.. (I'm too old) - I am also at the I'm too old age-range. I am happy to only deal with LLMs as a user. Google tends to know everything about anyone anyway. So as long as my questions are not giving away my private/secrets (i.e. "how should I wash my 5th nipple?") then "it's ok".