[quadrifoliate]

I think you are hyper-focusing on the headline, which is just a joke. The underlying article does not indicate to me that the author is ignorant of code, and if you care to look, they seem to have a substantial body of public open source contributions that proves this quite conclusively.

The underlying point is just that while it was very cognitively expensive to back up a good design with good code back in 2000, it's much cheaper now. And therefore, making sure the design is good is the more important part. That's it really.

[jdjeeee]

And… the design (artistry) aspect is always the toughest. So explain to me, where do the returns come from if it is seemingly obviously only those who are very well informed of their domains/possess general intelligence can benefit from this tool?

Personally I don’t see it happening. This is the bitter reality the LLM producers have to face at some point.

[quadrifoliate]

> So explain to me, where do the returns come from if it is seemingly obviously only those who are very well informed of their domains/possess general intelligence can benefit from this tool?

I...don't think this is true at all. "The design of the car is more important than what specific material you use" does not mean that the material is unimportant", just that it is relatively* less important. To put a fake number on it, maybe 10% less important.

I think people who have domain knowledge and good coding skills will probably benefit the most from this LLM producer stuff.