I've seen people type questions in to the LLM and get the answer they asked for but not the one they needed/wanted because they didn't have the correct terminology.
Surely the desired state isn't that nobody knows how to write code any more right?
> Surely the desired state isn't that nobody knows how to write code any more right?
I still look at code and find that agents work best when I write the foundation and then vibe on top of my hand-written code. Works extremely well because agent picks up my style accurately.
1) submitted changes that don't need any more revision than their previous human-written ones when it comes to code review?
2) no increase in bug incidents
3) no slow-down in peer work or future work caused by humans-or-agents having to fight increasingly overly-complicated, poorly-factored, copypasta-style code or god methods? (this might not be evident yet)
(Another question is how well is this person doing their job as a reviewer, making sure to keep the product quality bar high, without looking at code?)
Anyone in an org with coworkers no longer writing code needs to be making sure their managers have a pulse on the long-term health of the product to see who's doing it well (lots of test coverage, shipping only super-high-quality, refined-from-multiple angles stuff) or just being lazy (shipping first drafts that continually add debt to various files and methods).
It's generally and simply an encoding of what amounts to binary machine code which you translate via assembly code acting as a deterministic compiler from assembly to machine code if you are doing it manually.
LLMs aren't a deterministic process and human languages aren't as clear as machine code and assembly.
I remember! You created a control card, with tab stops and other controls, wrapped it around a control drum, and then had an easy time punching your source FORTRAN!
I just looked and found my old control drum, in the back of my junk drawer. But I can't find an old punch card machine in there, most have lost it somehow.
Besides. You're not asking <AGENT OF THE WEEK> to produce punch cards to jam into the PDP.
What would you do if the wizard gets stuck? Coarse the wizard into making the black box work through somebody else's direct perspective on the problem?
It's more like a restaurant. You give an order and a little while later, a finished dish appears.
The difference between a Chipotle and a Michelin starred establishment is that Chipotle is just assembling a mass produced good. A Michelin chef knows their ingredients inside and out; knows the science of how those ingredients work; knows varied techniques to extract flavors, create textures, etc.
Anyone can work in a Chipotle; few can achieve a Michelin star.
But that's not how human nature works. Most people take the path of least resistance. Especially when the primary purpose of the invention is to offer convenience.
The default output of any agent is going to be Transaction Script, for example. It will never on its own accord start writing Domain Model.
As it produces more Transaction Script and sesles its own Transaction Script, it will regress to this paradigm.
You can get it to write Domain Model, but that is not its default.
I liken it to examples in docs: they are always intentionally the simplest case.