[neuronet]

There is reasonable debate about their scope and limits, but it's hard to find anyone who understands how LLMS work that thinks they are a passing phase.

The pushback I see is from people who were raised to write everything from scratch, who don't trust the output of LLMS because of "hallucinations" or other crappy outputs. The problem is, the people making these claims are really out of touch with prompt engineering, and how students are currently learning to code with AI in-the-loop (and for basic coding and testing etc for common libraries, LLMs are really, really good at explaining things and writing entry-level code and tests -- this is not arguable: people that are fighting this are graybeards that haven't learned to code at a basic-to-intermediate level in a long time).

A good software developer, with a nose for code smells, will not just accept any old code an LLM produces, you have to use it intelligently, push back on bizarre constructions. Hence, for me, who hates writing tests, it is an amazing tool. If I had an intern or an undergrad who loved grindout out tests I'd use them, but that's basically my LLM at this point (and for the "but ackshually" guys yes obviously you can't use them mindlessly, we are writing code not drawing doodles).

[player1234]

Excellent strawman, good job!