(no title)
jtlicardo | 1 year ago
As for the reception, I did not expect it to be positive. People usually have a strong negative emotional reaction when you suggest their skills are, or are going to become, less relevant.
jtlicardo | 1 year ago
As for the reception, I did not expect it to be positive. People usually have a strong negative emotional reaction when you suggest their skills are, or are going to become, less relevant.
chriswait|1 year ago
I guess we'd probably agree that "writing code is an irrelevant skill" actually all comes down to whether LLMs will improve enough to match humans at programming, and thus comprehensively remove the need for fixing their work.
They currently don't, so at the time you claimed this it was incorrect. Maybe they will in the future, at which point it would be correct.
So, would it be responsible for me to bet my career on your advice today? Obviously not, which is why most people here disagree with your article.
You were prepared in advance to explain that criticism as people having a strong negative emotional reaction, so I'm not sure why you posted it here in the first place instead of LinkedIn where it might reach a more supportive audience.
jtlicardo|1 year ago
What I pointed out in my post is a trend I notice where an LLM can do more and more of a developer's work. Nowhere did I claim LLMs can replace human developers today, but when a technology consistently reduces the need for manual programming while improving its capabilities, the trajectory is clear. You can disagree with the timeline, but the transformation is already underway.
I posted on HN precisely because I wanted rigorous technical discussion, not validation.