[dimal]

I've actually gone in the other direction. A year ago, I had that feeling, but since then I've gotten more certain that LLMs are never going to be able to handle complexity. And complexity is still the real problem of developing software.

We keep getting more cool features in the tools, but I don't see any indication that the models are getting any better at understanding or managing complexity. They still make dumb mistakes. They still write terrible code if you don't give them lots of guardrails. They still "fix" things by removing functionality or adding a ts-ignore comment. If they were making progress, I might be convinced that eventually they'll get there, but they're not.

[IshKebab]

Yeah but on the other hand there are plenty of human programmers that are bad at understanding complexity, make dumb mistakes, and write terrible code. Is there something fundamentally different about their brains to mine? I don't think so. They just aren't as good - not enough experience, or not enough neurons in the right places or whatever it is that makes some humans better at things than others.

So maybe there isn't any fundamental change needed to LLMs to take it from junior to senior dev.

> They still "fix" things by removing functionality or adding a ts-ignore comment.

I've worked with many many people who "fix" things like that. Hell just this week, one of my colleagues "fixed" a failing test by adding delays.

I still think current AI is pretty crap at programming anything non-trivial, but I don't think it necessarily requires fundamental changes to improve.

[mrwrong]

this whole analogy is so tired. "LLMs are stupid, but some humans are stupid too, therefore LLMs can be smart as well". let's put aside the obvious bad logic and think for one second about WHY some people are better than others at certain tasks. it is always because they have lots of practice and learned from their experiences. something LLM categorically cannot do