> The paradigm now for software is "build a tool shed/garage/barn/warehouse full of as much capability for as many uses possible" but when LLMs can build you an custom(!) hammer or saw in a few minutes, why go to the shed?
1) Your specific analogy is kinda missing something important: I don't want my tools working differently every time I use them, also it's work to use LLMs. A hammer is kind of a too-simple example, but going with it anyway: when I need a hammer, I don't want my "LLM" generating a plastic one, then having to iterate for 30 minutes to get it right. It takes me far less than 30 minutes to go to my shed. A better example is would be a UI, even if it was perfect, do you want all the buttons and menus to be different every time you use the tool? Because you generate a new one each time instead of "going to the shed"?
2) Then there's the question, can an LLM actually build, or does it just regurgitate? A hammer is an extremely we'll understood tool, that's been refined over centuries, so I think an LLM could do a pretty good job with one. There are lots of examples, but that also means the designs the LLM is referencing are probably better than the LLM's output. And then for things not like that, more unique, can the LLM even do it at all or with a reasonable amount of effort?
I think there's a modern phenomenon where making things "easier" actually results in worse outcomes, a degraded typical state vs. the previous status quo, because it turns what was once a necessity into a question of personal discipline. And it turns out when you remove necessity, a lot of people have a real hard time doing the best thing on discipline alone. LLMs might just enable more of those degenerate outcomes: everyone's using "custom" LLM generated tools all the time, but they all actually suck and are worse than if we just put that effort into designing the tools manually.