

“there is evidence” - Translation: He read a sensationalist headline somewhere about a single study, didn’t read the study, definitely didn’t look for corroborating or refuting studies, and absolutely, positively has no actual data to confirm his pet theory.
This is literally the dumbest interpretation of the concept. This is what it looks like when tier-1 tech support folks want to roleplay as ML engineers while they troll internet forums cosplaying that they’re somehow “helping” while doing absolutely nothing meaningful with their life.



In short - I’m not.
This is a “buggy whip manufacturer” moment. Software development as we currently understand the practice is no longer needed in volume. Just like buggy whips no longer need as many craftsman making them since the advent of the internal combustion engine.
Yes, some people will still be “line editors” just like there are still some people preserving older skills and manufacturing niche items like buggy whips for the handful of horse-drawn buggies that still exist and are in-use.
But the vast majority of software going forward will be produced by LLMs. The skills required to “drive” the new LLM engine is an altogther different set of skills than what is required to whip and steer horses. Everyone fighting this tide is just fighting the inevitable.
Instead, I’m moving “up the stack” and focusing on answering the question, “What testing is difficult to game and shows me that the work has been done adequately to spec?”
The LLM-enabled future needs more mathematicians than it needs code-writers. The vast majority of anti-LLM Luddites I see online are all people who are “coders”; the “computer scientists” are busy adapting to a future that is already here.