I've been thinking for a while about what it was about my experience of LLMs that differed so much from some of the naysaying I hear. I feel like my ~16 years experience reviewing PRs on Homebrew makes reviewing LLM output feel easier and similar.

Interested if any other maintainers have a similar experience?

> All that said, I’d rather hire someone today who overuses LLM tooling over someone who refuses to use any. Ultimately, as technologists in a for-profit company within a capitalist economy, we are hired to generate business value. (…) The LLMs aren’t going to take your software job, but they will let you be better at it.

This is a contender for the most disappointing writing I’ve ever seen from Mike (which isn’t a regular occurrence). It completely misses so many important factors which have been discussed ad nauseam, such that someone abusing LLM tooling today—especially a junior—is crippling their own learning. But all those arguments pale on the face of this blatant embrace for profit above all. I’m profoundly saddened these are the views of someone who is at the helm of one of the most popular open-source projects currently.

The whole article lacks any valuable insight and reeks of the “my business uses AI” hype so many companies are chasing just to be valued and get attention. This is not about “open source maintainers” in general, as the title suggests, but about Mike’s personal experience.

> Let’s build some cool shit (and faster than we could in 2020).

No, let’s not. Let’s go build some stable shit for once. Everything is broken, and you’re partying like breaking everything some more is a good thing.

LLMs are a tool. They can help someone drive a nail through a piece of wood or their own hand. You can use them right or wrong, effectively or ineffectively. But you’re fawning over them like it’s all a panacea and completely ignoring how many people are proudly and ignorantly using them wrong. One day, not too far now, one of those people is going to drive a nail through your hand.