> If you can get the job done with an LLM without understanding the code it wrote, then that's awesome. I don’t think anyone would find fault with this argumen

> If you can get the job done with an LLM without understanding the code it wrote, then that's awesome. I don’t think anyone would find fault with this argument. People who are wary of LLMs, including myself, are in fact wary of lazyness. Getting the (current?) job done is only a small part of building a system. The fact is you have to maintain it or extract the embodied knowledge later, and that’s where no thought have not been given. In the Tidy First? book by Kent Beck, he explains that the value of software is both in its current behavior and the future possibilities that the structure provides. If there’s no future to worry about, LLMs may be a valuable tool.