Comment by mekoka

I think it's worth framing things back to what we're reacting to. The top poster said:

> I really really want this to be true. I want to be relevant. I don’t know what to do if all those predictions are true and there is no need (or very little need) for programmers anymore.

The rest of the post is basically their human declaration of obsolescence to the programming field. To which someone reacted by saying that this sounds like shilling. And indeed it does for many professional developers, including those that supplement their craft with LLMs. Declaring that you feel inadequate because of LLMs only reveals something about you. Defending this position is a tell that puts anyone sharing that perspective in the same boat: you didn't know what you were doing in the first place. It's like when someone who couldn't solve the "invert a binary tree" problem gets offended because they believed they were tricked into an impossible task. No, you may be a smart person that understands enough of the rudiment of programming to hack some interesting scripts, but that's actually a pretty easy problem and failing to solve it indeed signals that you lack some fundamentals.

> Considering those views are shared by a number of high profile, skilled engineers, this is obviously no basis for doubting someone's expertise.

I've read Antirez, Simon Willison, Bryan Cantrill, and Armin Ronacher on how they work or want to work with AI. From none I've got this attitude that they're no longer needed as part of the process.