Are you asking, essentially, to move past the data and evidence and get anecdotes? That seems the opposite of useful, and tbh LLM coding has wayyyy too much anecdotal 'evidence' going on.
Are you asking, essentially, to move past the data and evidence and get anecdotes? That seems the opposite of useful, and tbh LLM coding has wayyyy too much anecdotal 'evidence' going on.
I'm not sure what "the evidence" is in this case?
I mean, we have lots of people using LLMs to write software in different ways, as we explore this space. I don't really see how "the evidence" can be different from "anecdotes" at this stage of the exploration?
There have been a couple of studies done on LLM-assisted dev vs non-LLM-assisted dev, but the author doesn't cite them.