> If you use it on stuff that you’re pretty good at, it’s not a gamechanger (and if you’re an expert, it’s a minor boost at best).

This was probably true last year, and it’s a common talking point, but I’ve seen too many examples now of deep experts using Claude & Codex in the last year to solve very big problems, and write or rewrite large systems. The experts do complain that the LLMs can sometimes get stuck or go off the rails and they need to pay attention and actively steer. But nobody I know who’s using it is still claiming the LLMs aren’t a game changer, even quite a few people who were staunch holdouts for a long time. I was skeptical myself, for a long time, but had my oh shit moment late last year.

One caveat - to get expert results, you do need to have some experience using LLMs, you need to use it to write plans and design docs, know how to use ‘skills’ and MCPs, use it to review code, and (for now) you need to understand context compaction and when/why to use sub-agents. If you’re a domain expert but an AI noob, it’s less effective than an expert who knows how to use AI and has experience.

One of the biggest problem with humans is we’re wired to spot patterns and draw conclusions and then we have a really hard time seeing and accepting change and updating our mental rules. The LLMs are getting better. They have already gotten better, and they’re going to continue getting better. It’s too early to draw conclusions, and many conclusions people have already declared are out of date and no longer true.