[perhapsAnLLM]

"they are completely useless for real programming"

You and I must have completely different definitions of "real programming". In this very comment, you described a problem that the model solved. The solution may not have involved low-level programming, or discovering a tricky bug entrenched in years-worth of legacy code, but still a legitimate task that you, as a programmer, would've needed to solve otherwise. How is that not "real programming"?

[re_chief]

I wouldn't describe the LLM's actions in the example as "solving a problem" so much as "following a well-established routine". If I were to, for instance, make a PB&J sandwich, I wouldn't say that what I'm doing is "real cooking" even if it might technically fit the definition.

If an LLM controlling a pair of robot hands was able to make a passable PB&J sandwich on my behalf, I _guess_ that could be useful to me (how much time am I really saving? is it worth the cost? etc.), but that's very different from those same robo-hands filling the role of a chef de cuisine at a fine dining restaurant, or even a cook at a diner.

[theshrike79]

In this analogy you're clearly a private chef with clients who have very specific wishes and allergies.

The rest of us are just pumping out CRUD-burgers off the API assembly line. Not exactly groundbreaking stuff.

LLMs are really good with burgers, but not so much being a private chef.

[nuancebydefault]

"real programming" hits a "true scottsman" snare with me.