Yes. The people who can use these tools to dramatically increase their capabilities and output without a significant drop in quality were already great engineers for which there was more demand than supply. That isn't going to change soon.
Ditto for other use cases, like writer and editor. There are a ton of people doing that work whom I don’t think are ever going to figure out how to use LLMs well. Like, 90% of them. And LLMs are nowhere near making the rest so much better that they can make up for that.
They’re ok for Tom the Section Manager to hack together a department newsletter nobody reads, though, even if Tom is bad at using LLMs. They’re decent at things that don’t need to be any good because they didn’t need to exist in the first place, lol.
I disagree. By far, most of the code is created by perpetually replaced fresh juniors churning out garbage. Similarly, most of the writing is low-quality marketing copy churned out by low-paid people who may or may not have "marketing" in their job title.
Nah, if the last 10-20 years demonstrated something, it's that nothing needs to be any good, because a shitty simulacrum achieves almost the same effect but costs much less time and money to produce.
(Ironically, SOTA LLMs are already way better at writing than typical person writing stuff for money.)
> (Ironically, SOTA LLMs are already way better at writing than typical person writing stuff for money.)
I’m aware of multiple companies that would love to know about these, because they’re currently flailing around trying to replace writers with editors + LLMs and it’s not going great. The closest to success are the ones that are only aiming to turn out stuff one step better than outright book-spam, and even they aren’t quite where they want to be, hardly a productivity bump at all from the LLM use and increased demand on their few talented humans.
