upvote
Hard to believe that there are any non-mission-critical companies that won’t question one’s rejection of AI. Sounds insane, I know, but not using some LLMs to quickly look up a problem is akin to avoiding Googling when you have a problem.

Yes, they can be wrong. But if you’re competent enough, you should spot the irrelevant suggestions.

reply
Maybe?

I don't know. I used to agree with this, but after the umpteenth time of Claude recommending some obsolete or dead old library, old version, getting major version breaking changes dead wrong, writing code for it that's not even API compatible with the published docs, etc... I started to question whether it was actually faster. I end up pouring over the original documentation anyway.

I have learned some new things, been exposed to some new techniques, and learned about some new libraries, so it's hard to tell.

The problem is made worse by so much of the internet being AI slop now, traditional searching is a huge time waste too.

Looking forward to the next chapter of tech where we're able to use these tools appropriately and not destroy everything of value with them.

reply
Turns out you don't have to bet your whole career.

Do you think if AI turns out to be a dud, most of us will permanently lose our career as software engineers?

reply
I think some of us are witnessing brain rot spreading accross our peers already so I am pretty sure some people won't recover if one day their token quota/limit is removed/reduced for a reason.
reply
Not the same person, but in the event of an AI collapse I think those that relied on it will be at a disadvantage. The rapid deskilling that happens with AI usage is becoming more documented.
reply
If AI is good enough to cause peoples' skills to atrophy, then why would it collapse? It would seem that it was very useful indeed in that case.
reply
If your skills atrophy enough, maybe
reply