All of your answers were already addressed in my previous comment:
> [You are] completely ignoring how many people are proudly and ignorantly using them wrong.
The point is precisely that too many people are never going to verify outputs and will even resist any kind of human review to their LLM-generated code. This is not theoretical, we know this is happening. Which would be fine in a “you do you” manner if what those people did only affected them, but it affects everyone else too. Because we don’t write every software we use, and some day soon we’ll be bitten by one of these idiots who introduced a major security flaw in some system we’re forced to use (e.g. government website).
In other words, what I’m objecting to is precisely the narrow view of this article in unambiguously propping up the good parts and being blind to the bad parts, even criticising those who have a concern for the bad.
Yup, that’s fair. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic to think that we can get to established best practises that the vast majority of engineers will follow. Time will tell, I guess.
> [You are] completely ignoring how many people are proudly and ignorantly using them wrong.
The point is precisely that too many people are never going to verify outputs and will even resist any kind of human review to their LLM-generated code. This is not theoretical, we know this is happening. Which would be fine in a “you do you” manner if what those people did only affected them, but it affects everyone else too. Because we don’t write every software we use, and some day soon we’ll be bitten by one of these idiots who introduced a major security flaw in some system we’re forced to use (e.g. government website).
In other words, what I’m objecting to is precisely the narrow view of this article in unambiguously propping up the good parts and being blind to the bad parts, even criticising those who have a concern for the bad.