LLM Inevitabilism

In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipping, no waiting. This was the future. It was inevitable.

Yesterday I wanted to rewrite a program to use a large library that would have required me to dive deep down into the documentation or read its code to tackle my use case. As a first try, I just copy+pasted the whole library and my whole program into GPT 4.1 and told it to rewrite it using the library. It succeeded at the first attempt. The rewrite itself was small enough that I could read all code changes in 15 minutes and make a few stylistic changes. Done. Hours of time saved. This is the future. It is inevitable.

PS: Most replies seem to compare my experience to experiences that the responders have with agentic coding, where the developer is iteratively changing the code by chatting with an LLM. I am not doing that. I use a "One prompt one file. No code edits." approach, which I describe here:

https://www.gibney.org/prompt_coding

> Hours of time saved

Come back in a week and update us on how long you've spent debugging all the ways that the code was broken that you didn't notice in those 15 minutes.

Usually I don't nitpick spelling, but "mimnutes" and "stylisitic" are somewhat ironic here - small correct-looking errors get glossed over by human quality-checkers, but can lead to genuine issues when parsed as code. A key difference between your two examples is that the failure-cases of an HTML download are visible and treated-as-such, not presented as successes; you don't have to babysit the machine to make sure it's doing the right thing.

EDIT: plus, everything that sibling comments pointed out; that, even if AI tools _do_ work perfectly (they don't, and never will), they'll still do harm when "working-as-intended" - to critical thinking, to trust in truth and reporting, to artistic creation, to consolidation of wealth and capital.

Yeah, that sounds very much like the arguments parents gave to those of us who were kids when the web became a thing. "Cool walls of text. Shame you can't tell if any of that is true. You didn't put in work getting that information, and it's the work that matters."

Except it's turns out it's not a problem in practice, and "the work" matters only in less than 1% of the cases, and even then, it's much easier done with the web than without.

But it was impossible to convince the older generation of this. It was all apparent from our personal experience, yet we couldn't put it into words that the critics would find credible.

It took few more years and personal experience for the rest to get up to speed with reality.

I mean, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, with a sliding-scale that moves with time.

I got limited access to the internet in the Netscape Navigator era, and while it was absolutely awesome, until around 2010, maybe 2015 I maintained that for technical learning, the best quality materials were all printed books (well, aside from various newsgroups where you had access to various experts). I think the high barrier to entry and significant effort that it required were a pretty good junk filter.

I suspect the same is true of LLMs. You're right, they're right, to various degrees, and it's changing in various ways as time goes on.