> LLMs have only been reasonably good for a few months (since circa Nov'25).
Ironically this itself is one of the hyper/doomer takes.
> LLMs have only been reasonably good for a few months (since circa Nov'25).
Ironically this itself is one of the hyper/doomer takes.
But is it a hyper or a doomer take?
There seems to be a concencus among people I follow/read, that somewhere around that time was an inflexion point in coding LLMs, and this matches my personal experience.
(My comment was in the context of LLMs being used to generate non-throwaway code, not general GenAI use - apologies if that was unclear.)
> There seems to be a concencus among people I follow/read, that somewhere around that time was an inflexion point in coding LLMs, and this matches my personal experience.
LLMs have been a very useful tool to generate non-throwaway code for at least 2 years. It's a question of Overton Window, of mainstream acceptance, that has made you and the people you're talking about come to a "consensus" that there was an agentic LLM coding step change around that time. There was indeed an inflection point, but it was a social one: a window shift, where it became socially acceptable among mainstream SWEs to hold this sentiment. It had already been the case for a long time, but for those who understood this, expressing that was still not deemed acceptable. Doing so would brand one as a hyper, at least in the particular circles you were in.
You were in reality part of the doomers, just as much as the current doomers are still doomers.