They go nowhere because people are using wildly different definitions and contexts. There's one already in here about how ai is better than humans at coding.
- Yes llms are better at the mechanics of coding
- no they're not good enough for overall software dev.
- yes, this stuff should've been automated years ago in frameworks and in libs, or through sane programming langs that dealt with memory and logic flow better.
- yes, they're much more useful for documentation, search, etc. than they are at actual coding
- no, your stats aren't useful - 90% of coding is meaningless if you've also massively increased the amount of slop produced
- yes, llms do make you more productive overall, whether it's 10-30% or 1000% is context dependent
- yes and no that AI will change everything; no it doens't make sense to keep comparing pre-ai and post-ai worlds, it is very likely that the gains cancel each other out and we all just move up a layer of abstraction, and end up in a simlar situation to now.
- no we don't know what will actually happen to the job market, things can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. We've had the technology to be where are 20-30 years ago if we were focused as a society. Things take time, and real world is complicated.