I also make use of LLMs to help me with certain programming problems. But this author simply glides over a very important issue: how do you use LLMs responsibly

I also make use of LLMs to help me with certain programming problems. But this author simply glides over a very important issue: how do you use LLMs responsibly? What does it mean to be responsible in your work? If all of this is just a hobby for you, then it doesn't matter. But it matters a lot when you are serving other people; it matters when you must account for your work. You could make the case that all testing is a waste of time, because "I can do this, and this, and this. See? It appears to work. Why bother testing it?" We test things because it's irresponsible not to. Because things fail fairly often. I'm looking through the author's examples. It appears that he knows a lot about technology in general, so that he can be specific about what he wants. He also appears to be able to adjust and evaluate the results he gets. What if someone is bad at that? The LLM can't prompt itself or supervise itself. I come to everything with the mindset of a tester. LLMs have most definitely been overhyped. That doesn't mean they are useless, but any article about what they are able to do which doesn't also cover how they fail and how you be ready for them to fail is a disservice to the industry.