You may also consider that developers (like any person in any profession) exist on spectrum of competency, and you may just be better than most of them.

But models are climbing their way up the percentile charts.

90% of the software development in the work, by volume, can be done by people who are in the 50th percentile of skill.

So these model advances do meaningfully expand the amount of "useful" work that can be done without people. And simultaneously not be "good enough" for the specific kind of work you find yourself doing day to day.

Both can be true.

Grab the last 5,000 lines of code you wrote, and that you thought was bug-free. Run it through Opus 5.5 or Fable 5.1 and post what it finds (and be honest about it, given that nothing is at stake but an Internet argument.)

This is a poor test. Parity would be utilizing the models to implement the functionality of the 5k lines and comparing the outputs.

When's the last time you did that?

Never. I'm also not the OP you responded to. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your proposed test.

Try it, then get back to me about whether the test is "flawed." I guarantee that a frontier model will find more bugs in your code than you will find it a similar volume of code it wrote. I absolutely guarantee it.

Every developer needs to experience this particular flavor of ego death. Me, you, everybody.

>Every developer needs to experience this particular flavor of ego death. Me, you, everybody.

You seem like a deeply unpleasant person.

(Shrug) HN isn't a place where ignorance should be celebrated; there are plenty of other venues for that.