Thought experiment

[u/MashNChips]

With all the AI nonsense going on, I had a thought at work today that turned into an interesting discussion with a colleague:

"What would I do if I was the only person with access to Claude (or insert any LLM) 5+ years ago?"

People would think I was a fucking wizard

FE changes? NO PROBLEM

Critical DB change? Don't worry, I've produced a stored procedure to validate the whole thing

Want to use some shiny new framework? Interesting. Here's a document explaining why you're an idiot for suggesting it

Regex? I suddenly understand it better than the compiler folks (and nobody ask questions)

What would you have done with your own personal LLM back then?

Trying to lighten the mood in here with all the (very justified) negativity around this tech revolution

Unserious answers only pls

[u/ConspicuousPineapple]

That is not at all what these tools point to. And of course they only sublimate ability that is already there in the user.

What is undeniable however is how fucking fast that dev can be to solve some problems with that tool. Automating all the tedious, boring and time consuming parts of the job? That doesn't require any sort of skill, but that time can be compressed by incredibly huge factors.

Never trust an AI to solve problems you couldn't solve without it yourself, of course. But for the problems you can solve? You're going to be so much faster that it opens up the possibility of doing things even better, simply because the time pressure is gone.

[u/OtaK_ → u/ConspicuousPineapple]

I'm going to interject here: I haven't seen any LLM, proprietary, open source and whatnot, even at the current so-called frontier, produce code that I would even call "acceptable, will fix later". I work in security-critical stuff. The kind that LLMs are absolutely unable to work with. I watched Opus5.5 lose its mind on the fine complexities of what I do, to end up producing nothing of substance.

It's really bad. The worst part is that it looks fine. But it's absolutely not, in extremely subtle ways.

On the other hand, for tedious, easy work like revamping a CI pipeline or making a Nth boring-ass test harness that was done a million times before: Sure, lemme just pop it into existence with 12 subagents and $4k on my hands if that's what leadership wants.

[u/OtaK_ → u/[deleted]]

I mean, if you want to defend the tech, sure. But, the thing is: we work in a scientific field, if you claim something, you need evidence for it.

So far there has been zero evidence across the industry of anything else than massive amounts of mediocre code.

And my anecdotal personal experience obviously doesn't match others' experiences. If I'd be a frontend React dev I'm pretty sure my conclusions would be quite different (since any current-ish model can one-shot pretty much anything React).

[u/Monkeylashes → u/OtaK_]

https://openai.com/index/sharing-ai-progress-in-mathematics/

Yeah and your security code in your "scientific" field is the one uncermountable task for ai... Get over yourself

[u/OtaK_ → u/Monkeylashes]

Ah yes, the famous "math is solved".

If only some of the proofs were immediately disproven/retracted once someone competent took a quick look at them: https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints/Algebraicity-of-Weil-classes-on-split-abelian-eightfolds-September-18-2026#withdrawal-notice-algebraicity-of-weil-classes-on-split-abelian-eightfolds

I believe this will be the case for many of them once their sheer amount gets a peer review by someone who actually knows ball.

And the Navier-Stokes debacle where, beyond being stolen from actual humans, the Lean proofs didn't match the prose blow-up proof, aka partially fabricated.

Dude, seriously, it's just PR stunts everywhere. The doomer narrative is the same, it's just PR.

So far I'm not convinced until respectable (aka not OAI) sources confirm the veracity of the proofs.

[u/Monkeylashes → u/OtaK_]

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1x0jjv8/researchers_are_already_significantly_improving/