> I think the major difference I'm noticing is that many of the Boosters are not people who write any code.

Plenty of current, working engineers who frequent and comment on Hacker News say they use LLMs and find them useful/'game changers,' I think.

Regardless, I think I agree overall: the key distinction I see is between people who like to read and write programs and people who just want to make some specific product. The former group generally treat LLMs as an unwelcome intrusion into the work they love and value. The latter generally welcome LLMs because the people selling them promise, in essence, that with LLMs you can skip the engineering and just make the product.

I'm part of the former group. I love reading code, thinking about it, and working with it. Meeting-based programming (my term for LLM-assisted programming) sounds like hell on earth to me. I'd rather blow my brains out than continue to work as a software engineer in a world where the LLM-booster dream comes true.

> I'd rather blow my brains out than continue to work as a software engineer in a world where the LLM-booster dream comes true.

I feel the same way

But please don't. I promise I won't either. There is still a place for people like you and me in this world, it's just gonna take a bit more work to find it

Deal? :)

Sounds good, thanks!

> So is the "These tools are game changers and are going to make all work obsolete soon" sentiment

Except we aren't talking about those people, are we? The blog post wans't about that.

> Don't start pretending that AI boosters aren't everywhere in tech right now

PLEASE tell me what I said that made you feel like you need to put words in my mouth. Seriously.

> I think the major difference I'm noticing is that many of the Boosters are not people who write any code

I write code every day. I just asked Claude to convert a Medicare mandated 30 page assessment to a printable version with CSS using Cottle in C# and it did it. I'd love to know why that sort of thing isn't useful.