[spunker540]

Obviously to a mega super genius like yourself an LLM is useless. But perhaps you can consider that others may actually benefit from LLMs, even if you’re way too talented to ever see a benefit?

You might also consider that you may be over-indexing on your own capabilities rather than evaluating the LLM’s capabilities.

Lets say an llm is only 25% as good as you but is 10% the cost. Surely you’d acknowledge there may be tasks that are better outsourced to the llm than to you, strictly from an ROI perspective?

It seems like your claim is that since you’re better than LLMs, LLMs are useless. But I think you need to consider the broader market for LLMs, even if you aren’t the target customer.

[kragen]

Knowing SQL isn't being a "mega super genius" or "way talented". SQL is flawed, but being hard to learn is not among its flaws. It's designed for untalented COBOL mainframe programmers on the theory that Codd's relational algebra and relational calculus would be too hard for them and prevent the adoption of relational databases.

However, whether SQL is "trivial to write by hand" very much depends on exactly what you are trying to do with it.