> If you make an effort to use the new tools effectively, the gains are wild. Don't fall into a grumpy luddite trap, the train is leaving the station and you'll struggle to catch up if you don't learn and grow.
Correct, in fact you can tell most AI detractors aren't thinking about this from a _computer science_ point of view. You'll have many people claiming "why prompt an LLM when you can write it and commit it yourself in 45 minutes?" True, you could. But that's a purely _serial_ workload. LLMs are effectively data-independent and they can.. work in _parallel_. Meaning instead of working on a single task, you can juggle multiple simultaneously. So even if you're as fast or faster on a one-on-one basis, you _cannot physically_ be faster than 10 separate sessions running in parallel, working on wholly separate tasks. And that's actually where most 10x gains come from. See Amdahl's/Gustafson's laws.
Correct, in fact you can tell most AI detractors aren't thinking about this from a _computer science_ point of view. You'll have many people claiming "why prompt an LLM when you can write it and commit it yourself in 45 minutes?" True, you could. But that's a purely _serial_ workload. LLMs are effectively data-independent and they can.. work in _parallel_. Meaning instead of working on a single task, you can juggle multiple simultaneously. So even if you're as fast or faster on a one-on-one basis, you _cannot physically_ be faster than 10 separate sessions running in parallel, working on wholly separate tasks. And that's actually where most 10x gains come from. See Amdahl's/Gustafson's laws.