You still have to know what you’re doing. That came from years of doing it by hand. Where is that necessary experience going to come from for the current and future generations of juniors?
In 10 years llms will handle it all from start to finish.
2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
91–100 of 260 posts
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#92While I agree with the premise, I think this angle only applies on work one was going to do no matter what. The real power of these tools is that there are so many ideas people would like to try, but never have the time or motivation to pursue. So the comparison is not only "built with and without LLM" but "would you even build this if you didn't have the LLM?". The gap in productivity in this case is much more wide.
> The real power of these tools is that there are so many ideas people would like to try, but never have the time or motivation to pursue. This can be a negative multiplier: code I thought I wanted that gets immediately abandoned is a net-negative if no one else wants it (lets face it, this is the safest default posture for software of unknown providence). In isolation, instant-abandonware takes up hdd space, burns d…
Some things are already very useful as just a one shot. I just made a quick app to help me pack for a trip, it updated forecasts every day, let me know when rain entered the forecast at one of my stops and gave me a checklist that helped me quell my travel anxiety.
The greatest thing that LLMs have done is allow many to achieve things that they couldn't have before. I'm incredibly disinterested in "I can do the same thing I was already doing x% faster"
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quality of my bash scripts is 100x what they used to be. Proper help messages, flag parsing, functions, internal variables, using sed all the time (I could never wrap my head around that). Of course, the main issue is that they’re completely undebbugable now. My bash scripts used to be a sequential list of commands, now they’re 500 lines of variable laden functions. Is my life any better? Dunno. But it’s satisfyi…
> the main issue is that they’re completely undebbugable now Well, that means the quality actually dropped then :). Looking impressive isn't equal to quality, understandability and reliability is
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> allows me to do things not only faster, but better, and across domains I do not hold expertise on. How would you know it's better when you have no expertise?
Because it produces the desired output. The purpose of a program. There are many domains where an intelligent human can act as a discriminator for output without knowing exactly in precise detail how the process itself works.
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is great because my job is a lot easier, but it produces some extremely crappy code that would've NEVER passed a code review 1 year ago. You could argue that it speeds up development by 5X or more, but then it slows down testing/verifying, code review, and in many cases it makes it impossible to review/rework by hand. I just do what I'm told at work but even though I'm sure I'm in the minority I'm extremely skepti…
> it produces some extremely crappy code that would've NEVER passed a code review 1 year ago The 10x speed up comes from the fact that we have all given up on properly reviewing each others code and we just say “meh, it will be fine, lgtm”
BUT, to me if we hadn't lowered the bar MASSIVELY, it would NOT be fine.
I've seen people at my work that will push or even deploy features that don't do what their main purpose is and they just dismiss the issue saying it's a bug. As an example, a button that's supposed to open a modal window if you click on it. If you go test it and the modal doesn't open, they'll say "oh, there's a bug".
You developed or even deployed something that is wrong and completely useless. Just one year ago, this would be unheard of and you would've gotten a really hard time for it. Now it's just a bug and part of how we're doing things.
Like I said, I just do what I'm told at work but to me this is just wild. There's no way it won't come back to bite us.
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#96While I agree with the premise, I think this angle only applies on work one was going to do no matter what. The real power of these tools is that there are so many ideas people would like to try, but never have the time or motivation to pursue. So the comparison is not only "built with and without LLM" but "would you even build this if you didn't have the LLM?". The gap in productivity in this case is much more wide.
I think the ideas worth pursuing still require substantial time and motivation, even with LLMs. Otherwise you just end up with a half-baked sloppy artifact that nobody will ever use or study, for a net negative benefit to humanity.
E.g. software that generates these models that I can print
https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2026-06-30/Modeling_a_W...
https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-12-01/Grounding_Yo...
Or blog post authoring software
https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2026-04-25/The_rise_of_...
There were so many things that no one will ever study and won’t give humanity any benefit but I use everyday to make my life better. That’s enough. The value far exceeds $200/mo. I’m getting it for cheap and now that I have my GPUs and my models they can’t even take it from me in the future if they wanted, haha!
LLMs allow for human flourishing on a massive scale. One of the best inventions to occur in my life. Up there with the Internet/Web. Truly a marvelous time.
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#97Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#98This is a dated take to me. I think the next stage in unlocking productivity is so called "loop engineering"; figuring out how to effectively not read all the code while ensuring quality. To me that means implementing statistical quality control and formal methods. Before I get there I have to figure out how to reliably audit plan adherence. The problem is that when the specs are in natural language, as they are, you…
Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#99Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026
#100While I agree with the premise, I think this angle only applies on work one was going to do no matter what. The real power of these tools is that there are so many ideas people would like to try, but never have the time or motivation to pursue. So the comparison is not only "built with and without LLM" but "would you even build this if you didn't have the LLM?". The gap in productivity in this case is much more wide.
It's a braindead simple program that mostly hooks together pre-existing functionality, it just so happened that none of the widely available apps had the specific mix of features I wanted. I could probably have done it myself in a week if I took time off my non-coding day job to figure out Swift and AppKit. But I wasn't going to do that. I’m psyched. I hate web apps and now I can just write my own for all the little things I use every day.