Of course not! But I can definitely ship useful tools, and I can could learn to talk the talk in a tenth of the time it would otherwise have taken.

Which is my point, this is not about replacement, it's about reducing the need and increasing supply.

How are you going to ship a tool you don't understand? What are you going to do when it breaks? How are you going to debug issues in a language you don't understand? How do you know the code the LLM generated is correct?

LLMs absolutely help me pick up new skills faster, but if you can't have a discussion about Rust and Svelte, no, you didn't learn them. I'm making a lot of progress learning deep learning and ChatGPT has been critical for me to do so. But I still have to read books, research papers, and my framework's documentation. And it's still taking a long time. If I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't know what question to ask or how to evaluate if ChatGPT is completely off base (which happens all the time).

Can you talk about assembly without the internet?

I fully understand your point and even agree with it to an extent. LLMs are just another layer of abstraction, like C is an abstraction for asm is an abstraction for binary is an abstraction for transistors... we all stand on the shoulders of giants. We write code to accomplish a task, not the other way around.

I think friction is important to learning and expertise. LLMs are great tools if you view them as compression. I think calculators are a good example, people like to bring those up as a gotcha, but an alarming amount of people are now innumerate on basic receipt math or comprehending orders of magnitude.

It is absolutely essential that we still have experts who know the details. LLMs are just the tide that lifts all ships.

> Can you talk about assembly without the internet?

Yes.

Can you not?