Hacker News Reader

Comment by amadeuswoo | Hacker News Reader

The skills that atrophy are the ones you weren't using anyway. If you let the LLM do the interesting/engaging parts, that's on you, not the tool

View on HN

if it's able to do the interesting/engaging part faster than me, i don't see why i should not outsource to it (The same argument as why use LLM-assisted programming at all, you don't want to miss the productivity boost)

What then is your interest in avoiding skill atrophy? It sounds like you realize that outsourcing your programming work to AI will likely result in skill atrophy, but you are so happy with the results that you are okay with this. (And so are a lot of people! Not saying it's a bad decision.)

What change are you after?

i'm trying to see what i can do to stay relevant

Aren't you making yourself irrelevant and the first group to be cropped out of the market or do you see others who don't use llms as much as dinos who will be filtered away first because your method offers more productivity?

I personally rarely have been paid for productivity. How fast I can put out features rarely earns me extra money. What people want is someone who understands what they want and finds a way to deliver when we agreed to and spots pitfalls along the way.

If LLMs are the best programmers then programming is obsolete so why do you want programming skills?

you need to be able to review what the LLM is writing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com