[benashford]

This is true. But, it's also true of assigning tasks to junior developers. You'll get back something which is a bit like what you asked for, but not done exactly how you would have done it.

Both situations need an iterative process to fix and polish before the task is done.

The notable thing for me was, we crossed a line about six months ago where I'd need to spend less time polishing the LLM output than I used to have to spend working with junior developers. (Disclaimer: at my current place-of-work we don't have any junior developers, so I'm not comparing like-with-like on the same task, so may have some false memories there too.)

But I think this is why some developers have good experiences with LLM-based tools. They're not asking "can this replace me?" they're asking "can this replace those other people?"

[Jensson]

> They're not asking "can this replace me?" they're asking "can this replace those other people?"

People in general underestimate other people, so this is the wrong way to think about this. If it can't replace you then it can't replace other people typically.

[danaris]

But a junior developer can learn and improve based on the specific feedback you give them.

GPT5 will, at least to a first approximation, always be exactly as good or as bad as it is today.

[hitarpetar]

> They're not asking "can this replace me?" they're asking "can this replace those other people?"

In other words, this whole thing is a misanthropic fever dream

[tyg13]

Yeah, I see quite a lot of misanthropy in the rhetoric people sometimes use to advance AI. I'll say something like "most people are able to learn from their mistakes, whereas an LLM won't" and then some smartass will reply "you think too highly of most people" -- as if this simple capability is just beyond a mere mortal's abilities.

[collingreen]

> misanthropic

I see what you did there

[scuff3d]

This is a really short sighted way to look at things. Juniors become seniors. LLMs just keep hallucinating.