I see a lot of comments like this and it reflects strongly negatively on the engineers who write it imho. As in I've been a staff level engineer at both Meta and Google and a lead at various startups in my time. I post open source projects here on HN from time to time that are appreciated. I know my shit. If someone tells me that LLMs aren't useful i think to myself "wow this person is so unable to learn new tools they can't find value in one of the biggest changes happening today".
That's not to say that LLMs as good as some of the more outrageous claims. You do still need to do a lot of work to implement code. But if you're not finding value at all it honestly reflects badly on you and your ability to use tools.
The craziest thing is i see the above type of comment on linked in regularly. Which is jaw dropping. Prospective hiring managers will read it and think "Wow you think advertising a lack of knowledge is helpful to your career?" Big tech co's are literally firing people with attitudes like the above. There's no room for people who refuse to adapt.
I put absolute LLM negativity right up there with comments like "i never use a debugger and just use printf statements". To me it just screams you never learnt the tool.
> That's not to say that LLMs as good as some of the more outrageous claims. You do still need to do a lot of work to implement code. But if you're not finding value at all it honestly reflects badly on you and your ability to use tools.
You are in a forum full of people that routinely claim that vibe coding is the future, that LLMs already can fully replace engineers, and if you don't think so you are just a naysayer that is doing it wrong.
Rephrasing your claim, LLMs are just moderately useful, far from being the future-defining technology people invested in it wants it to be. But you choose to rally against people not interested in marketing it further.
Given the credentials you decided to share, I find it unsurprising.
> I put absolute LLM negativity right up there with comments like "i never use a debugger and just use printf statements". To me it just screams you never learnt the tool.
To me it just feels different. Learning to use a debugger made me feel more powerful and "in control" (even though I still use a lot of print debugging; every tool has its place). Using AI assisted coding makes me feel like a manager who has to micro-manage a noob - it's exhausting.
It’s exhausting because most of us like to sit down open an IDE and start coding with the belief that ambiguous or incomplete aspects will be solved as they come up. The idea of writing out the spec of a feature from without ambiguity, handling error states, etc. and stopping to ask if the spec is clear is boring and not fun.
To many of us coding us simply more fun. At the same time, many of us could benefit from that exercise with or without the LLM.
For pet projects, it might be less fun. For real projects, having to actually think about what I'm trying to do has been a net positive, LLM or no LLM.
Why would you point out two tool obsessed companies as something positive? Meta and Google are overstaffed and produce all sorts of tools that people have to use because someone's performance evaluation depends on it.
The open source code of these companies is also not that great and definitely not bug free. Perhaps these companies should do more thinking and less tooling politics.
Agree. I've never had the attention span to learn code, but I utilize LLM's heavily and have recently started managing my first large coding project with CC to what seems like good results.
As LLM get better, more and more people will be able to create projects with only rudimentary language understanding. I don't think LLMS can ever be as good as some of the outrageous claims; it's a lot like that 3rd grade project kids do on writing instruction on making a PB&J. LLM's cannot read minds and will only follow the prompt given to them. What I'm trying to say is that eventually there will be a time where being able to effectively manage coding agents efficiently will be more externally valuable than knowing how to write code.
This isn't to say that engineering experience is not valuable. Having a deep understanding of how to design and build secure and efficient software is a huge moat between experienced engineers and vibecoders like me, and not learning how to best use the tools that are quickly changing how the world operates will leave them behind.
Alternatively - there's 5 million other things I could be learning and practicing to improve as a programmer before trying out the new AI codegen-du-jour. Until I'm Fabrice Bellard, focusing on my fundamental skills will make me a better programmer, faster, than focusing on the hype of the day.
this comment states that you have posted a plurality of projects, but there is only one which received two votes (hardly well-received); the unawareness of your own posts (or lack thereof) implies this may not have been written by a human.
That's not to say that LLMs as good as some of the more outrageous claims. You do still need to do a lot of work to implement code. But if you're not finding value at all it honestly reflects badly on you and your ability to use tools.
The craziest thing is i see the above type of comment on linked in regularly. Which is jaw dropping. Prospective hiring managers will read it and think "Wow you think advertising a lack of knowledge is helpful to your career?" Big tech co's are literally firing people with attitudes like the above. There's no room for people who refuse to adapt.
I put absolute LLM negativity right up there with comments like "i never use a debugger and just use printf statements". To me it just screams you never learnt the tool.