The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

Good article! This matches how I feel about the situation.

It's really not incongruent to use LLMs and be in awe of their frankly incredible capabilities while at the same time recognize the risks and frankly real damage we are already seeing to junior training and hiring, open source communities and (in my opinion) very soon the entire fabric of our society.

I respect that people don't want to use agents themselves for whatever personal reason.

I respect maintainers not accepting AI-authored contributions. It's a tradeoff between progress, growing new contributors and maintainer sanity. Though I do feel that categoric opposition to anything AI will likely be futile in the mid-term.

I respect people pushing for regulation of AI or a global pause or whatever.

I don't particularly respect people dismissing everything AI authored as slop. Categorically refusing to read an article because it contains em-dashes or the term "load-bearing" is silly. While this is slowly changing now, many people are still in complete denial as to what the frontier AI is capable of.

Love it, hate it - I don't care, but at least respect it, goddamit.

I think both the LLM critics and the LLM advocates are right.

Even this article has some cognitive dissonance in it. What it really comes down to is how much you trust your own verification process. The branches of questions an LLM generates are still trapped within the biases of its training data. Of course, the authority to craft that initial prompt, the very first question, comes from human experience and learning.

But I think thought itself is the easiest resource to outsource. People say the human did the thinking and the LLM just amplified it, but the truth is, the LLM outsources the thinking. Otherwise, when the result is good, people say "human thought was present," and when it's bad, they say "human thought was absent." But a part of the actual thinking really is outsourced. The alternatives, the counterexamples, the sentence structure. In programming terms, the reader's experience gets outsourced. When you write a blog post, you find yourself thinking about how to make something you understand easy for someone else to understand. With an LLM, that part gets outsourced.

But at the same time, I don't get the argument that you shouldn't use it at all. We don't "think" about everything. We have limited cognitive resources. So we study deeply the things we care about, but for the things we don't need, we mostly leave them to "common sense" or prejudice. We just skim the surface.

I think of "common sense" as "the largest collection of prejudice." Because what we call common sense usually just amounts to surface level knowledge, the kind of thing we know just enough about to get by.

That's why I think LLMs are good. The reason is simple. I don't think deeply about everything in the world anyway. For everything else, I'm buried in some kind of bias. You see it on HN all the time, right? People fight over some technology, but they often don't think about its internal structure or why it works the way it does. They just treat it as an identity. They fight over a particular language, a framework, an operating system, but they rarely check how that technology actually works internally or why it was designed that way. Why use MVC, why a different architecture might be better for my case, it's easier to just go with what's popular. Put more elegantly, "job mobility" gets bundled in there too. I use Windows. In my country, if it's not Windows, you literally can't do anything. You can't even do basic online banking. From regional context like that all the way down to personal interests, people are bound to be different. So I'm just going to use LLMs. The most common excuse you hear around this is the whole "reinventing the wheel" thing.

So yeah, I'm going to use LLMs. Because I recognize that I bias myself toward only thinking about what I want to think about. And I know that bias isn't cognitively healthy. But on the flip side, I think what the world values, whether it's knowing a lot or knowing one thing deeply, is going to change.

Honestly, I don't know what's right. I think both the advocates and the critics are making valid points. I respect the people who don't use it, and the people who do just have their own workflow. There's really no reason to fight over whose workflow is superior.

> For sure. You cannot have "only higher level thoughts" without doing lower level work

What do you mean? I think people routinely think about things at a very high level with almost no understanding of the lower levels. How many people use a computer each day and reason about them at a very high level while knowing nothing of capacitors, logic gates, or programming languages?

I don't think there is necessarily one ideal middle ground here. It still feels to me like what's best is a function that depends on who and when.

I see it as something like a personal gradient descent. You're working on a problem, there are solutions down there somewhere, and you can kind of feel the gradient of the tools-and-techniques ground around you. Any way you walk means you're investing time improving some skill or another. So you should go the way that personally feels to you will best get you moving in the direction that you want to go.

For some people it's obvious LLMs are competent coders, getting better, sticking around... and those people should lean into that gradient. For some people what's obvious is nearly the exact opposites of all that, and I'd encourage those people to also follow their gradient/heart/nose down the path of sharpening their personal traditional coding skills. Some people are in a relatively flat area where nothing is obvious, and need to explore and maybe just keep doing their best to hedge with a bit of both.

Master craftsmen paid apprentices almost next to nothing, and they were often contractually guaranteed to stick around for many years, so the teaching was a kind of wage and also a cost that could be recuperated later on. (The apprentice even often had to pay the craftsman to take them on.) None of those things are true for junior software engineers, who are paid to contribute and can leave at any moment. Also, yes apprentices often had to do chores. It is just not analogous at all.