For example, it would be wrong for me to say that "hyperloop got a ton of hype and investments, and it failed. Therefore LLMs, which are also getting a ton of hype and investments, will also fail." Hyperloop and LLMs are fundamentally different technologies, and the failure of hyperloop is a poor indicator of whether LLMs will ultimately succeed.
Which isn't to say we can't make comparisons to previous successes or failures. But those comparisons shouldn't be your main argument for the viability of a new technology.
My main argument for the viability of the technology is that it's useful today. Even if it doesn't improve from here, my job as a coder has already been changed.
This is so annoying to me. My job as a coder hasn't changed because my responsibilities as a coder hasn't changed
Whether or not I beg an LLM to write code for me or write it myself the job is the same. At best there's a new tool to use but the job hasn't changed.
Using the LLM guarantees you will need to use the LLM every time imo
Just like using a calculator guarantees you'll never learn to do mental math. Yes it's easier and we all have calculators in our pockets now, but when you don't actually train a skill you become reliant on the tech
That's a bad outcome in many ways imo
It may have helped that shopping carts were actively designed to be pushed.
Carts were a necessity to get people to interact with the new "center aisles" of the grocery store which is mostly full of boxed and canned garbage.