• Jiral@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 hours ago

    That is right, it is a tool. But how useful will it be as a tool once it will be sold by token at real costs, where every mistake that tool makes costs money and we are talking here maybe about 10 times higher costs than people currently pay for Claude, at the minimum.

    Add to that the question how the use of LLMs affects the career pipeline from junior dev to senior dev.

    There not so many tool analogies where the tool is especially good at making things look good, even if they aren’t when you dig deeper.

    • ell1e@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      I also think there still hasn’t been a study showing consistent long term significant(!) productivity gain for coders. (Other than lines of code in total, but that alone is a poor measure.) The amount of new hidden bugs and other issues seem to outweigh most of the perceived gains.

      • Jiral@lemmy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The key question is if total costs along the pipeline, from requirements definition tdown to the final quality controlled fully denugged product can be reduced, at real LLM costs (not with the currently vastly subsidised costs).

    • nomad@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Well i can’t disagree with that take. Skill still plays a role. You still can’t suggest people keep writinga and reviewing solely by hand. That ship has sailed.