They will ship faster what? Different software requires different levels of diligence. A pop-up web site for an event and a piece of foundational infrastructure code have almost nothing in common.
> the quality won't be any worse than yours.
Does the current practice support this claim? My claim is that with a kind word and a gun, I mean, with human expertise and LLM's ability to do intellectual legwork, it is possible to achieve more than with just an LLM.
>> we don’t need business people!
> We won't need either.
ROTFL. Did you see what e.g. good salespeople do? Very often they are more important for success than engineers, and I say it as an engineer.
>> the ability to write, think and communicate clearly
> No, LLM will do this for you
I hope this is said in jest. If not, I rest my case and just wait for the reality to land its sobering uppercut.
> I hope this is said in jest. If not, I rest my case and just wait for the reality to land its sobering uppercut.
The ASI believers would say exactly the same back to you. If a machine can think better than humans, then outsourcing thinking to it will get better outcomes, however degrading it is to humanity. Presuming, of course, the machines still listen to us when they are superior to us in all ways.
Shipping faster I believe, but we've seen plenty of startups in tech since the late 90s that all "shipped fast" but ended up bankrupt because shipping fast isn't the same thing as shipping what is good, neccessary, helpful, or profitable. That said, those were things made by humans so I'm not saying human-built is good by default.
But shipping more and / or faster is not the solution. I'm not even sure what the problem it's trying to solve would be.
> How will LLMs "do it for you" if you don't tell them what you want / need?
> shipping fast isn't the same thing as shipping what is good, neccessary, helpful, or profitable
> But shipping more and / or faster is not the solution. I'm not even sure what the problem it's trying to solve would be.