Very much so. I feel like LLMs are even greater force than something like "steroids" which in the end are deadly if abused.

It's more like they are being carried in the arms of a big robot who is doing the running for them, but everyone has somehow agreed to say that the human "ran" a five-minute mile because they ordered the robot where to run.

Except performance enhancing drugs are banned from sports because that’s how they want it to be played (it has nothing to do with safety, look at non drugs like the LZR Racer swim suit).

If you wish to make software engineering your job then it stops being a game where we ban things simply because they provide an “unfair” advantage.

If you wish to play at programming “the way it used to be done” then by all means go ahead. But mixing methapors between sports and work is not helpful.

I think you grossly misunderstood my point. Just saying the hobby side of it is less fun because the effort part of it feels more pointless.

I guess I don’t understand the motivation you have for perusing your hobbies.

To me, the effort part only feels pointless if you want to accept LLM-derived code as comparable. Any marathon run is pointless, you go in a loop and we have cars. The point is to do the run yourself unaided.

That a computer can play a virtual instrument better than me (and continuously better than anyone) has little bearing on whether or not I continue practicing on my piano.

The world at large does accept LLM-derived code as comparable. The same cannot be said for driving v. running 26 miles.

I think the analogies are not helping us. This started by comparing LLMs to performance enhancing drug being used within the same sport.

But software engineer, as a job rather than a hobby, has always been about results. Hence my original point.

Hence my confusion. I am not perusing my hobbies for “the world at large” I’m perusing them for myself; being able to drive 26 miles makes no difference to me nor to the others who wish to run it.

I think most people derive joy from hobbies because they get a unique skill as a result of time invested. If the Philadelphia marathon started giving out medals to people who drive the course in a car, I think less people would want to run it.

I agree, but they would move on to another marathon that didn’t hand out prizes to drivers.

People who continue to do the hobby without LLMs will still get unique skills, like woodworkers who don’t use power tools.

I understand that this is a loss for those who were pursuing programming as a hobby only as long as it gave them a unique skill and made them feel superior to others. However, for better or worse, I can’t bring myself to care about that.

Not sure how you got the 'made them feel superior' part.

I’m not sure what other implication there is.

Hobby programming without LLMs and you gain unique skills (you can do the work without power tools).

Hobby program with LLMs, you gain unique skills again (you learn how to properly use these models and get to quickly iterate on your design skills). Regardless of what the big labs are saying, there is still a lot of skill involved in creating with them; if only because they don’t read minds so you have the get good at describing your taste and requirements.

My point is in the former case, if the skill feels less useful, it just feels less fun. It's not a 'better than' thing.

I guess I fundamentally disagree with that being a good metric by which to pick hobbies. I am not picking mine based on some economic expected value calculation, it's whether or not I enjoy doing the activity for its own sake.

I guess it's hard to express over text, it's not an economic value thing, it's about being able to cultivate a unique and useful skill.