Outsourcing solved coding a long time ago. You can go on Fiverr and prompt a real human developer for $2/hr - even cheaper than LLMs!

When you say "solved coding," what does this mean, what does it look like?

I have strong disagreement because it sounds like, by analogy or proxy, we have also "solved writing"

I find it helps to imagine what is/isn't solved (however, we choose to label it) by an indefinite number of cheap junior-developers.

Except a little worse, since they were raised alone in a library, act mostly the same, and have harsh limits on personal growth.

>The problem is code is the wrong abstraction for the work we do

My team recently spent two weeks on a wild goose chase trying to figure out why TensorFlow Lite was generating nonsensical OpenCL kernels. Well it turns out that LLVM had a few bugs in the RISC-V assembly for our platform that was leading to silent garbage. It took combing through assembly dumps, hexdumps, a lot of pain staking debugging, and going through the TensorFlow Lite source code to to track this down.

In your opinion, if code is the wrong abstraction to be working at, how do you approach this scenario?

Even if they "solved" that, the problem is it's the LLM that "knows" it, not the team.

Which is really the same problem with coding.

The agentic model of it just taking over and doing everything is poisonous to effective long term team work.

We're well past the point where it's about the quality of the work they produce. It's the way they integrate (or rather, don't) into human practices.

You can immediately tell someone has absolutely no fucking clue what they're talking about and dismiss everything they say as soon as they say "solved coding". You must write the most heinous code imaginable if you think LLMs are better, or even anywhere near, what a competent professional can produce. So funny to listen to terrible coders talk up terrible code.

In the first place, what does it even mean to say that code is the "wrong abstraction" for the work we do? You can't actually abstract away reality. Maybe you wish we could, that programming computers wasn't about contending with physical constraints. But it is. It will never not be important to have control over what the hardware is actually doing. Abstractions are temporary conveniences, not a replacement for understanding what is being abstracted away.

Or more broadly, LLMs fundamentally don't "understand". They can simulate understanding and generate text/code/whatever, but they don't have will to engage with something holistically and "own" it.