[remich]

I think this is an interesting point, my one area of disagreement is that there is no "anti-LLM sentiment" in the programming community. Sure, plenty of folks expressing skepticism or disagreement are doing so from a genuine place, but just in reading this site and a few email newsletters I get I can say that there is a non-trivial percent in the programming world who are adamantly opposed to LLMs/AI. When I see comments from people in that subset, it's quite clear that they aren't approaching it from a place of skepticism, where they could be convinced given appropriate evidence or experiences.

[bitwize]

But there's a difference. Being opposed to AI-generated art/music/writing is valid because humans still contribute something extraordinarily meaningful when they do it themselves. There's no market for AI-generated music, and AI-generated art and writing tends to get called out right away when it's detected. People want the human expression in human-generated art, and the AI stuff is a weak placeholder at best.

For software the situation is different. Being opposed to LLM-generated software is just batshit crazy at this point. The value that LLMs provide to the process makes learning to use them, objectively, an absolute must; otherwise you are simply wasting time and money. Eric S. Raymond put it something like "If you call yourself a software engineer, you have no excuse not to be using these tools. Get your thumb out of your ass and learn."

[skydhash]

Ok, I’ll bite. What’s there to learn that you can tie directly to an increase of productivity?

I can say “learn how to use vim makeprg feature so that you can jump directly to errors reported by the build and tool” and it’s very clear where the ROI. But all the AI hypers are selling are hope, prayers, and rituals.