This entire article lacks substance. It just feels like I'm reading a lot of vague nonsense.
> I have a habit of reaching for AI as the primary source of information, and I'm using Perplexity, Google, or StackOverflow less and less frequently.
In my experience, LLMs simplify and overgeneralize too much, lacking much of the context and insights from websites like stack overflow. I've been doing a lot of database work recently, something I'm not an expert in, and I've learned a lot by actually reading the actual source, not just blindly trusting the output of the AI. If I trusted AI as much as the author seems to, my database code would be much worse.
I look forward to the day when AI actually is good enough to generate 90% of my code. But as of today, it's just not.
> This entire article lacks substance. It just feels like I'm reading a lot of vague nonsense.
If the guy generates 90% of his code with AI, do you think he's doing anything else without it? His writing is probably AI slop too. His "hero image" certainly is.
> I have a habit of reaching for AI as the primary source of information, and I'm using Perplexity, Google, or StackOverflow less and less frequently.
In my experience, LLMs simplify and overgeneralize too much, lacking much of the context and insights from websites like stack overflow. I've been doing a lot of database work recently, something I'm not an expert in, and I've learned a lot by actually reading the actual source, not just blindly trusting the output of the AI. If I trusted AI as much as the author seems to, my database code would be much worse.
I look forward to the day when AI actually is good enough to generate 90% of my code. But as of today, it's just not.