Hacker News Reader

Comment by ath3nd | Hacker News Reader

> No, it's just logical, LLM is a useful tool

How open are you to the possibility that it's the other way around? Because the study suggests that it's actually junior code monkeys that benefit from LLMs, and experienced software engineers don't instead get a decline of their productivity.

At least that's what the only available study so far shows.

That's corroborated with my experience mentoring juniors, the more they struggle with basic things like syntax or expressing their thoughts clearly in code, the more benefit they got from using LLM tools like Claude.

Once they go mid-level and above, the LLMs are a detriment to them. Do you currently get big benefit from LLMs? Maybe you are more early in your career?

View on HN

I think you are making a couple of very good points getting bogged down in the wrong framework of discussion. Let me rephrase what I think you are saying:

Once you are very comfortable in a domain, it is detrimental to have to wrangle a junior dev with low IQ, way too much confidence but encyclopediac knowledge of everything instead of just doing it yourself.

The dichotomy of Junior vs. Senior is a bit misleading here, every junior is uncomfortable in the domain they are working in, but a Senior probably isn't comfortable in all domains. For example, many people with 10+ SE experience I know aren't very good with databases and data engineering, which is becoming an increasingly large part of the job. For someone who has worked 10+ years on Java Backends, now attempting to write Pythin data pipelines, Coding Agents might be a useful tool to gap that bridge.

The other thing is creation vs. critique. I often let my code, writing and planning be rewiewed by Claude or Gemini, because once I have created something, I know it very well, and I can very quickly go through 20 points of criticism/recommendations/tips and pick out the relevant ones. - And honestly, that has been super helpful. Using it that way around, Claude has caught a number of bugs, taught me some new tricks and made me aware of some interesting tech.

Those "experienced" actually are just senior code monkeys if u ask me, it's trivial right ? I don't assume the reason why, but it's just illogical for a junior to get benefits and the seniors don't. The wrong ones here is the "experienced".

I know how to use the AI tools for my purpose (that's why i use them), and of course, to make the impossible possible. Even if i failed to do so, it's not the decrease in productivity because without them, i don't think i can do better than the LLM.

> Those "experienced" actually are just senior code monkeys if u ask me, it's trivial right

Well, it seems you are not open for discussion. There is no reason to disparage the senior devs that participated in the study just because you don't like the results of the study. But the study happened, and it is clear: experienced developers are the ones that suffered from using LLMs.

> but it's just illogical for a junior to get benefits and the seniors don't

Experienced car drivers won't benefit from a youtube tutorial how to drive, junior car drivers might. That's similar to junior developers being potentially the ones who can benefit from the basic things that an LLM can help you with, e.g helping you with syntax and structure your thoughts and write a scaffold to get you started. Those are concerns that experienced developers don't need help with, similarly how experienced drivers don't need youtube tutorials how to shift a gear. There is nothing illogical in that premise. Do you agree?

> i don't think i can do better than the LLM

I most certainly can tell you that there are 1000s of developers that can do infinitely better than any of the current LLMs, and those developers are fairly often senior. It seems like a skill issue you mentioned in the beginning of your post might actually be on your side.

That study was not conducted well at all. The participants haven’t learned how to use these tools. For example one was interviewed later and said a lot of the time they would wait for an agent and get distracted playing with something irrelevant and then forget to go back until much later. That has solutions they are not aware of to implement.

> For example one was interviewed later and said a lot of the time they would wait for an agent and get distracted playing with something irrelevant and then forget to go back until much later

Counterpoint: the agents are the reason for the distraction.

> That has solutions they are not aware of to implement.

Counterpoint: there are no other current studies that suggest otherwise. Given the impact of LLMs on open source (net negative, maintainers are drowning in slop: e.g curl: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...) maybe it makes sense to be a bit more critical on LLM's supposed gains.

Let's see what we have so far:

- The only study to date suggests a net negative from using LLMs on experienced developers

- OSS maintainers are rejecting AI generated PRs due to low quality

- No other studies have come out so far to suggest otherwise

Based on my anecdotal experience and based on the currently available evidence, for me the conclusion is clear: LLMs and agents are mostly hype.

You keep talking about "no other studies" as if that holds power but the strength of your argument rests on a single study

It's no surprise to me that devs who are accustomed to working on one thing at a time due to fast feedback loops have not learned to adapt to paralellizing their work (something that has been demonized at agile style organizations) and sit and wait on agents and start watching YouTube instead. The study reflects usage of emergent tools without training, and with regressive training on previous generation sequential processes, so I would expect these results. If there is any merit in coordinating multiple agents on slower feedback work, this study would not find it.

Productivity could just be simple automation. U just describe one part of the whole process. My point stands still. If u cannot get llm to benefit u, u are the problem.

That's like saying if you cannot get a boat to fly, you're a bad pilot.

The responses in this thread captures the absurdity of the AI hype so well that it's satirical, even. Putting all blame of AI deficiency on "bad prompting," denial of concrete evidence, and the refusal to provide one either is a recurring pattern in these discussions. The repeated angry name-calling towards experienced developers who failed to uphold your beliefs is the cherry on top.

you forgot "ridiculously hyperbolic claims", e.g "to make the impossible possible"

  >  i don't think i can do better than the LLM.

I'd just like to point out just how sad, self-defeating, and ignorant this statement is.

I could literally teach a below-average-intelligence 16-year-old how to write better code than any LLM I've ever seen - if they're interested and willing to learn.

You're gonna need to define "code monkey".

My understanding is that a code monkey just does what they're told. All the planning and behind the scenes negotiations that the senior devs and management do is completely opaque to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com