> That is useful, and the result can be shockingly impressive depending on what you're trying to do. But the limitations are so limited that the prospect of replacing an entire high-skilled profession with that magic trick is kind of a joke.
The possible outcome space is not binary (at least in the near term), i.e. either AI replace devs, or it doesn't.
What I'm getting at is this: There's a pervasive attitude among some developers (generally older developers, in my experience) that LLM's are effectively useless. If we're being objective, that is quite plainly not true.
These conversations tend to start out with something like: "Well _my_ work in particular is so complex that LLM's couldn't possibly assist."
As the conversation grows, the tone gradually changes to admitting: "Yes there are some portions of a codebase where LLM's can be helpful, but they can't do _everything_ that an experienced dev does."
It should not even be controversial to say, that AI will only improve at this task. That's what technology does, over the long run.
Fundamentally, there's ego involved whenever someone says "LLM's have _never_ produced useable code." That statement, is provably false.