At the end of the day, it doesn't really get you that much if you get 70% of the way there on your initial prompt (which you probably spent some time discussing, thinking through, clarifying requirements on). Paid, deliverable work is expected to involve validation, accountability, security, reliability, etc.
Taking that 70% solution and adding these things is harder than if a human got you 70% there, because the mistakes LLMs make are designed to look right, while being wrong in ways a sane human would never be. This makes their mistakes easy to overlook, requiring more careful line-by-line review in any domain where people are paying you. They also duplicate code and are super verbose, so they produce a ton tech debt -> more tokens for future agents to clog their contexts with.
I like using them, they have real value when used correctly, but I'm skeptical that this value is going to translate to massive real business value in the next few years, especially when you weigh that with the risk and tech debt that comes along with it.
Since I don't code for money any more, my main daily LLM use is for some web searches, especially those where multiple semantic meanings would be difficult specify with a traditional search or even compound logical operators. It's good for this but the answers tend to be too verbose and in ways no reasonably competent human would be. There's a weird mismatch between the raw capability and the need to explicitly prompt "in one sentence" when it would be contextually obvious to a human.
Yep - no doubt that LLMs are useful. I use them every day, for lots of stuff. It's a lot better than Google search was in its prime. Will it translate to massively increased output for the typical engineer esp. senior/staff+)? I don't think it will without a radical change to the architecture. But that is an opinion.
I completely agree, I found it very funny that I have been transitioning from an "LLM sceptic" to a "LLM advocate", without changing my viewpoint. I have long said that LLM's won't be replacing swathes of the workforce any time soon and that LLM's are of course useful for specific tasks, especially prototyping and drafting.
I have gone from being challenged on the first point, to the second. The hype is not what it has been.
Taking that 70% solution and adding these things is harder than if a human got you 70% there, because the mistakes LLMs make are designed to look right, while being wrong in ways a sane human would never be. This makes their mistakes easy to overlook, requiring more careful line-by-line review in any domain where people are paying you. They also duplicate code and are super verbose, so they produce a ton tech debt -> more tokens for future agents to clog their contexts with.
I like using them, they have real value when used correctly, but I'm skeptical that this value is going to translate to massive real business value in the next few years, especially when you weigh that with the risk and tech debt that comes along with it.