I think LLM addicts are particularly susceptible to flattery.
36 karma · joined December 29, 2025
I think LLM addicts are particularly susceptible to flattery.
If they can't, did they really do it in the first place?
Are they actually literate in the programming languages they're using?
would you agree that LLMs make developer stupider?
edit: answer my question
all it took was a chatbot that says "you're a genius"
edit: a lot of articles like this have been popping up recently to say "LLMs aren't as good as we hyped them up to be, but they still increase developer productivity by 10-15%".
I think that is a big lie.
I do not think LLMs have been shown to increase developer productivity in any capacity.
Frankly, I think LLMs drastically degrade developer performance.
LLMs make people stupider.
edit: Major engine changes have occurred after the models were trained, so you will often be given code that refers to nonexistent constants and functions and which is not aware of useful new features.
"It's trained to make you think it's amazing and magical and therefore you think it's amazing and magical."
is the dark pattern underlying the entire LLM hype cycle IMO.
I think LLMs are very well marketed but I don't think they're very good at writing code and I don't think they've gotten better at it!
How are LLMs going to stay on top of new design concepts, new languages, really anything new?
Can LLMs be trained to operate "fluently" with regards to a genuinely new concept?
I think LLMs are good for writing certain types of "bad code", i.e. if you're learning a new language or trying to quickly create a prototype.
However to me it seems like a security risk to try to write "good code" with an LLM.