Will people avoid adopting them because code won't be auto-generated efficiently?
It wouldn't be a barrier for me or many people that read hacker news, but I suspect there is a growing subset of the developer community for who this would be an issue.
If you're thinking, all we have to do is wait for OpenAI to re-scrape the web and re-train GPT on the new material, well... LLMs don't "learn" so much by looking at documentation, as by looking at examples. And a new tool is not going to have a lot of examples out there, simply by virtue of being new.
The "Selfish Gene" strikes again.
Aside, this is not going to stop people learning and using a language if it provides benefits. Not everyone is on the AI hype train. I personally couldn't care less - I don't trust any current AIs to write correct, bug-free code and so I just avoid them. Then again, I also don't trust most humans to write bug-free code and I tend to avoid them too. Formal verification should be the way forward, and this is why new languages, which can embed proofs, should continue being developed and improved, ignoring the AI hype.
When the AI can write code in formal verification languages, I might consider it.
Personally, I'm waiting for the space to settle, and for an offline, self-hosted and OSS version to reach feature parity with the proprietary SaaS offerings. Those might exist already, I'm not evaluating the options frequently, but I'm in no hurry.
On-topic: NueJS looks interesting. I'm very worn out and weary of shiny new JS frameworks, but I like the simplicity here. Will keep an eye on the project and consider it again once it matures, but for now Svelte is my best friend.
If you introduce a feature where someone writes
int i=0;
I would probably let the IDE write the loop header for me. And the string formatting. And modify the function I'm writing to support multithreading. And tell me it looks like I was trying to change each instance of pxX to pxY and graphX to graphY but also forgot to change one rotX to rotY.
Hell, if the IDE could read a PDF datasheet and automatically import addresses and bitfields and assign them to variable names, much of my current career workflow would be automated and I could focus mental effort on more creative work.
Autocomplete is far less intrusive, and doesn't fall into this category. I can quickly refine the results since the scope is greatly reduced, and I don't have to read a large chunk of code to understand whether it does what I want it to do, or whether it introduces subtle bugs I'll have to hunt down later. Besides, we've had code snippets, macros and refactoring tools for decades to help with writing code quickly, so AI tools are not groundbreaking in that sense.
Even once AI tools are absolutely correct in guessing my intention, and write entirely bug-free code, I think I'll still prefer typing code out manually. By that point, AI will be capable of writing complex programs from prose prompts, so that creative work you mention will also be automated away. Yet human programmers will still exist in some form, if nothing for the joy of it. We'll probably value programs written by humans in the same way we value handcrafted tools that are not mass produced today.