It has long been understood that programming is more about reading code than writing code. I don't see any issue with having LLMs write code. The real issue arises when you stop bothering to read all the code that the LLM writes.
> The real issue arises when you stop bothering to read all the code that the LLM writes.
Fluency in reading will disappear if you aren't writing enough. And for the pipeline from junior to senior, if the juniors don't write as much as we wrote when young, they are never going to develop the fluency to read.
I think you have this backward. Someone who never reads might forget how to write. Someone who never writes, but reads all the time, will not forget how to read.
> I think you have this backward. Someone who never reads might forget how to write. Someone who never writes, but reads all the time, will not forget how to read.
You are saying something completely different to what I am saying; are you really saying that someone who writes all the time will forget how to read?
You understand that the act of writing is in fact partially reading?
> It's more about moving to higher levels of abstraction than reading vs writing
There is no "moving higher" with LLMs, is there? I am already at the higher level of abstraction needed to delegate to a subordinate and check their work.
Whether that subordinate is man or machine is not really relevant.
