I wonder if the author specifically writes in a difficult to comprehend style to demonstrate their humanity. They specifically relay heavily on sharing niche cultural context, to the point where I’m sure most people will not extract all of the meaning.

Reading this feels like only getting half of the inside jokes of a friend group.

I had a similar take after my first experience using AI to help me code. I put it aside as a curiosity. But when I went back recently, it's not that it's perfect, but the improvement in that time was massive. Does that mean it will continue to improve at that pace? Not necessarily, but we haven't seen the end state yet, so anything we say is just a judgment on what we have at the moment.

I appreciate the insights here.

The author grazes something I’ve been thinking about for a while while watching LLMs evolve along with their uses: will this tool result in more significant work being accomplished or just more…work in general.

By that I mean it accommodates completing small well documented projects well but seems to flounder on larger more meaningful work.

We already have a problem with junior/mid tier knowledge workers not scoping their efforts effectively and just doing work for works sake. Will the ease of completing small but ultimately useless work result in more of this?

Not a jab at LLMs really. More our propensity to miss the forest in our rush to view a tree.