[makerofthings]

I became a programmer because I like to write code. Having an llm write code for me is like building a robot that eats cake.

[__MatrixMan__]

The kind of things that LLMs can make without tremendous amounts of hand holding... Are they the kind of projects that you like to write code for?

I became a programmer because I want to explore the edge of what's possible. I'm finding it still satisfying when I'm doing it via LLM. They're only good at spitting out entire projects when those projects resemble many that already exist.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

I think this is accurate.

[booleandilemma]

Beautifully put. I'm about as excited for LLMs as an artist would be for a robot that can paint. I know a lot of people out there can't imagine actually enjoying programming though.

[strogonoff]

One does not have to be a carpenter to have furniture, and one does not have to become a software engineer to get computers to do things.

Unless you are into it, you’ll realize that it’s quite a grind and your time is much better spent getting somebody who is into it (and thanks to that became an expert to it) get computer to do what you want faster and better.

There’s nothing wrong with trying it, if anything to find out whether you are into it or not in the first place. If you stick to it, chances are you are into it—just like you don’t become a carpetner simply because you want to have furniture: perhaps that’s one of your initial impulses, but you are also mentally compatible with the process and tick some other boxes.

On that note, what does it mean to be “into it” when it comes to programming? What is a “good” reason to become a software engineer? To me, it’s about the inclination to tinker, the eventual payoff of the dopamine rush from seeing puzzle pieces fall together, and the desire to own the process, do things by yourself even as you stand on the shoulders of giants.

Between these things, LLM-driven development strikes me as somewhat weak on tinkering (there may be some, but less, and much less precise and deterministic), and very weak on the desire to do things by yourself. Of course, that shouldn’t invalidate anyone’s personal experience.

[andai]

For me it is both. I love certain kinds of programming, and don't enjoy other kinds. I'm naturally very good at some kinds, and not good at other kinds, despite putting in enormous effort.

I guess ideally I'd get a job that is perfectly aligned with this profile (a work in progress!), but AI allows me to deal with the reality I have now in a much more pleasant and productive way.

[codr7]

Careful with the productivity claims, there's plenty of research showing that perspective is usually a distortion of some kind. Which makes sense, you have someone at your shoulder constantly reassuring you and bubbling ideas; I can see how it feels productive. Many report feeling more stressed, because the spaces where they used to think are no longer there.

[soco]

I'm sure you can and will still be able write code. It's just you'll be getting paid less and less if you do it for a living.

[lomase]

Do you think a senior programmer will earn less money because the company now can have a junniors for 250$ a month?

[xandrius]

You can still write code without AI. But for people who actually have the goal of solving problems they can now solve much more problems!

[slaterbug]

That’s a nice prospect. What worries me is the point at which I’m no longer a required part of the problem solving process.

[falcor84]

For what it's worth, collecting new problems to solve is actually the main fuel for improving the AIs, so if GenAI becomes good at creating problems, which it can iterate on tackling, then there's a flywheel going.

[andrewstuart]

I can understand then why you might not enjoy using AI to make a computer do your bidding.