Yep, it's pure hyperbole. Maybe for generating starter templates I can 70% out of AI, but once I'm building on an established project, it's much more limited to 30%. This is due to large projects taking too much context for an LLM to clearly understand feature development.

Yep exactly. If what this person is claiming is true we would've seen major acceleration in number of long standing bugs/issues in an open source project like pytorch. I don't see any such thing.

Is this Addy Osmani person some sort of AI scamster to make these absurd claims. I cannot think of any other reason thats motivating him to write this.

I agree with you but still, I find that I'm getting more and more value with LLMs for coding. I've been pleasantly surprised with how easy it was to refactor my code for instance. And I think I'm not using it at the full potential yet.

But we need to check everything, so it doesn't save you from having the expertise. Unless you're willing to ship code you don't understand and you won't be able to fix if it breaks.

You're missing that the pressure to move to AI assisted coding to destroy the wages of programmers is coming from the top down. The focus on AI for programming is both to reduce the demand for software engineers and to make those remaining uncertain about their jobs because the suits are sick of paying current market rate.

> destroy the wages of programmers is coming from the top down

True, we're only cost to them. They can't wait to get rid of us, and we're building the tools for them to do so.

I think these sort of articles are CTO fodder, i have friends who have their company mandate that "all coding should now use AI " .