The moment your code departs from typical patterns in the training set or ("agentic environment") LLMs fall over at best (i.e. can't even find the thing) or do some random nonsense at worst.
IMO LLMs are still at the point where they require significant handholding, showing what exactly to do, exactly where. Otherwise, it's constant review of random application of different random patterns, which may or may not satisfy requirements, goals and invariants.
A contrarian opinion - I also didn't jump the train yet, its even forbidden in our part of company due to various regulations re data secrecy and generally slow adoption.
Also - for most seasoned developers, actual dev activity is miniscule part of overall efforts. If you are churning code like some sweatshop every single day at say 45 its by your own choice, you don't want to progress in career or career didn't push you up on its own.
What I want to say - that miniscule part of the day when I actually get my hands on the code are the best. Pure creativity, puzzle solving, learning new stuff (or relearning when looking at old code). Why the heck would I want to lose or dilute this and even run towards it? It makes sense if my performance is rated only based on code output, but its not... that would be a pretty toxic place to be polite.
Seniority doesn't come from churning out code quicker. Its more long the lines of communication, leading others, empathy, toughness when needed, not avoiding uncomfortable situations or discussions and so on. No room for llms there.
There have been times when something was very important and my ability to churn out quick proof of concept code (pre AI) made the difference. It has catapulted me. I thought talking was all-important, but turns out, there's already too much talk and not enough action in these working groups.
So now with AI, that's even quicker. And I can do it more easily during the half relevant part of meetings, which I have a lot more of nowadays. When I have real time to sit and code, I focus on the hardest and most interesting parts, which the AI can't do.
> ability to churn out quick proof of concept code (pre AI) made the difference. It has catapulted me. I thought talking was all-important
It is always the talking that transitions "here's quick proof of concept" to "someone else will implement this fully and then maintain". One cannot be catapulted if they cannot offload the implementation and maintenance. Two quick proof of concept ideas you are stuck with and it's already your full capacity. one either talks their way out to having a team supporting them or they find themselves on a PIP with a regular backlog piling up.
Your comment is basically paraphrasing my responses to older threads on HN telling me I needed to use vibe coding.
Most of my day isn't coding. But sometimes it is. On those days, AI helps me get back to doing the important stuff. Sure, I like solving problems and writing code, but where I add value to my company is in bringing solutions to users and getting them into production.
I'm a systems/embedded engineer. In my 30 years of being employed I've written very little code, relatively speaking. I am not a code monkey cranking out thousands of lines per day or even week. AI is like having an on-demand intern who can do that if I need to, however. I basically gained an employee for free. AI can also saving me time debugging because look, I'm old and I really don't write all that much code. I mess up syntax sometimes. I can't remember some stupid C++ rule or best-practice sometimes. Now I don't have to read a book or google it.
AI is letting me put my experience and intuition to work much more efficiently than ever before and it's pretty cool.
While I think that is true and this thread here is about senior productivity switching to LLMs, I can say from my experience that our juniors absolutely crush it using LLMs. They have to do pretty demanding and advanced stuff from the start and they are using LLMs nonstop. Not sure how that translates into long term learning but it definitely increases their output and makes them competent-enough developers to contribute right away.
> Not sure how that translates into long term learning
I don't think that's a relevant metric. "learning" rate of humans versus LLMs. If you expect typical LLMs to grow from juniors to competent mids and maybe even seniors faster than typical human, then there is little point to learn to write code, but rather learn "software engineering with artificial code monkey". However, if that turns out to not be true, we have just broken the pipeline producing actual mids and seniors, who can actually oversee the LLMs.
> Seniority doesn't come from churning out code quicker. Its more long the lines of communication, leading others, empathy, toughness when needed, not avoiding uncomfortable situations or discussions and so on. No room for llms there.
they might be poor at it, but if you do everything you specified online and through a computer, then its in an LLMs domain. If we hadnt pushed so hard for work from home it might be a different story. LLMs are poor on soft skills but is that inherent or just a problem that can be refined away? i dont know
> What I want to say - that miniscule part of the day when I actually get my hands on the code are the best.
And if you are not "churning code like some sweatshop every single day" those hours are not "hey, let's bang out something cool!", it's more like "here are 5 reasons we can't do the cool thing, young padawan".
Same, I have Gemini Pro 2.5 (now 3) exclusively implementing new designs that don't exist in the world and it's great at it! I do all the design work, it writes the code (and tests) and debugs the thing.
I'm happy, it's happy, I've never been more productive.
The longer I do this, the more likely it is to one-shot things across 5-10 files with testing passing on the first try.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But it's a good time to learn now, to jump on the train and follow the progress.
It will give the developer a leg up in the future when the mature tools are ready. Just like the people who surfed the 90s internet seem to do better with advanced technology than the youngsters who've only seen the latest sleek modern GUI tools and apps of today.
Quite frankly - the majority of code is improved by integrating some sort of pattern. a LLM is great at bringing the pattern you may not have realized you are making into the forefront.
I think there's an obsession, especially in more veteran SWEs to think they are creating something one of a kind and special, when in reality, we're just iterating over the same patterns.
IMO LLMs are still at the point where they require significant handholding, showing what exactly to do, exactly where. Otherwise, it's constant review of random application of different random patterns, which may or may not satisfy requirements, goals and invariants.