I certainly wouldn't use a compiler that "screws up" 1% of the time; that's the perfect amount where it's extremely common where everything I use it for will have major issues but also so laborious to find amongst the 99% of correct output that I might as well not use it in the first place.

Which is ironically, the exact case those of us who don't find LLM-assisted coding "worth it" make.

You're not any better my friend. Name calling and straw man fallacies make a far worse point, if any, that that commenter made.

If they only screwed up 1% of the time, they'd be as good as the LinkedIn hype men want you to believe. They're far far worse then that in reality

Where's the evidence of the productivity, or does it just feel productive? https://minutes.substack.com/p/tool-shaped-objects

FTFY: “There’s this incredible new technology that allows evil megacorporations to get richer and control the world while destroying the beauty of the Web.”

LLMs screw up far more than 1% of the time. They screw up routinely, far more than a professionally trained human would, and in ways that would have said human declared mentally ill.

not questioning the cost of adopting new tech is so foolish it boggles my mind that so many nominally intelligent people just close their eyes and take a bite without wondering whether that's really fudge on their sundae or something fecal.

Pure ideology, as a certain sniffing slav would say

> enabling programmers around the world to be far more productive

I know a lot of us feel this way, but why isn't there more evidence of it than our feelings? Where's the explosion of FOSS projects and businesses? And why do studies keep coming out showing decreased productivity? Why aren't there oodles of studies showing increases of productivity?

I like kicking back and letting claude do my job but I've yet to see evidence of this increased productivity. Objectively speaking, "I" seem to be "writing" the same amount of code as I was before, just with less cognitive effort.