why is it insulting? It's an incredible piece of machinery for refracting natural language into other language. That itself accounts for a majority of orders people pass on to other people before something actually gets done.

Ultimately, yes, programming with LLMs is exactly the sort of programming we've always tried to do. It gets rid of the boring stuff and lets you focus on the algorithm at the level you need to - just like we try to do with functions and LSP and IDE tools. People needn't be scared of LLMs: they aren't going to take our jobs or drain the fun out of programming.

But I'm 90% confident that you will gain something from LLM-based coding. You can do a lot with our code editing tools, but there's almost certainly going to be times when you need to do a sequence of seven things to get the outcome you want, and you can ask the computer to prepare that for you.

> If I may ask - how are humans in general different? Very few of us invent new ideas of significance - correct?

Firstly, "very few" still means "a large number of" considering how many of us there are.

Compared to "zero" for LLMs, that's a pretty significant difference.

Secondly, humans have a much larger context window, and it is not clear how LLMs in their current incarnation can catch up.

Thirdly, maybe more of us invent new ideas of significance that the world will just never know. How will you be able to tell if some plumber deep in West Africa comes up with a better way to seal pipes at joins? From what I've seen of people, this sort of "do trivial thing in a new way" happens all the time.

I think if we fully understood this (both what exactly ishuman conciousness and how llm differs - not just experimentally but theoretically) we would then be able to truly create human-AI

He's got a point though front end development is in a completly ridiculous state right now

No it really is like that. "Frontend" aka jam everything into an all-consuming React/Vue mega project really isn't the most fun. It's very powerful, sometimes necessary (<50% of the times it's chosen), and the tooling is constantly evolving. But it's not a fun experience when it comes to maintaining and growing a large JS codebase... which is why they usually get reinvented every 3yrs. Generally an opposite experience with server side which stays stable for a decade+ without touching it and having a much closer relationship to the database makes better code IMO, less layers/duplication.

Frontend is very fun when you're starting a new project though.

  Frontend is in such a terrible state that whatever shit code LLM spits out is valid? Give me a break.

The front end is in the hands of the enemy. They can do what they want with it.

The back end is not. If it falls into the hands of the enemy then it is game over.

Security-wise, it is clearly acceptable for the front end to be of lower quality than the back end.

> Why is it acceptable for front end code to be of lower quality than the rest?

While I don't think that f/end should be of a lower quality than the rest of the stack, I also think that:

1. f/end gets the most churn (i.e. rewritten), so it's kinda pointless if you're spending an extra $FOO months for a quality output when it is going to be significantly rewritten in ($FOO * 2) months.

2. It really is more fault tolerant - an error in the backend stack could lead to widespread data corruption. An error on the f/end results in, typically, misaligned elements that are hard to see/find.

"It's just the UI" is a prevalent misconception in my experience.

My favorite is these "vibe coding" situations that leave SQL injection and auth vulns because copy-paste ChatGPT. Never change.

  The post has a catchy title and a (in my opinion) clear message about using models as API callers and fuzzy interfaces in production instead of as complex program simulators. It's not about using models to write code.

I mean, the message is wrong as well. LLMs can provide customer support. In that case, it's the business logic.

Honestly, I still don't understand the message you're conveying.

So you're saying that ChatGPT helped you write the business logic, but it didn't write 100% of it?

Is that your insight?

Or that it didn't help you write any business logic at all and we shouldn't allow it to help us write business logic as well? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

  The message is: don't use LLMs to implement any logic.

  Don’t let an LLM make decisions or implement business logic: they suck at that. I build NPCs for an online game, and I get asked a lot “How did you get ChatGPT to do that?” The answer is invariably: “I didn’t, and also you shouldn’t”.

  Because they think LLM and ChatGPT are synonymous.